Would you consider INT on this?

[Mr Umpire]

Would you call INT on this in real time, do you think? Do you have INT on the batter?

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19116087

[sdix00]

I had INT on the retired batter from the first camera angle (up and behind F1), based on F2's reaction.

In slo-mo from the 1B Dugout camera, it seems there was no INT and F2 held up for a different reason. As PU I would probably have the same info and not called INT here.

[grayhawk]

Even with Hunter thinking it was ball 4, he still has to stay out of the way of the throw by F2. It's pretty clear to me that he interfered.

[sdix00]

Even with Hunter thinking it was ball 4, he still has to stay out of the way of the throw by F2. It's pretty clear to me that he interfered.

Not to hijack this thread in a different direction, but calling INT after ball 4 means you would be calling Runner INT, not batter INT. And Runner INT must be intentional.

See:

https://www.umpire.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=271

[Umpy]

If it was Ball 4 there wouldn't have been a throw