New partner

[MD Longhorn]

I'm not sure Irish agreed with the out or disagreed with Rita or I.

I did not say intent was required. It's not. All Irish did was clarify that.

That said, you were there, we were not - but just given your description of the play, I don't see interference.

While it doesn't require INTENT, it still requires INTERFERENCE to be ruled as such. Given the way you describe the play - the ball coming off the catcher toward the batter and then coming out --- what did the batter DO that got the INT call? I guess what I'm saying is that it requires action (or perhaps negligent inaction) on the batters part to have INT here. Just happening to be in the path of the ball that ricochets off the catcher and into his legs is not interference on his part.

If the batter (intentionally or unintentionally) kicked the ball such that the catcher no longer had a play --- then we have INT.

If the batter (intentionally or simply obliviously) remains in the catcher's way longer than necessary, and somehow causes the catcher to no longer have a play --- then again you could have INT.

You, the umpire, has to decide at what point during the action that the batter is responsible for what happened (again, intent not being a factor). Immediately after the ball comes off the catcher, whatever happens is not the batter's fault.

In other words, the way it's been explained to me by my betters is that the batter has to DO something on this play that warrants interference. (Intent being irrelevant, but ACTION being relevant).

(PS - I welcome any elaboration or even contradiction from Irish on this).