Catcher Obstruction

The question is, did the catcher interfere with the batter's ability to hit the ball?

A catcher does not need to have intent, doesn't need to contact the batter at all. Just needs to prevent the batter from hitting the ball.

If in your judgment, the batter was going to put the ball into play but was unable to because of the catcher's actions, the catcher interfered. If the catcher reaches across the plate to receive a pitch and the batter makes no attempt to swing, I can't see how you'd call interference. If the batter checked his swing, swung and missed badly or something else that indicates to you that he tried to avoid hitting the catcher, then I'd have interference.

R1 attempts to steal 2nd.  The over enthusiastic catcher jumps up and onto the plate to receive the pitch quicker in order to try and throw the runner out.  The batter just stood there with a look on his face like "what do I do?"  I immediately called time and interference on the catcher because he did not even give the batter the opportunity to try and make a swing.  I awarded the batter 1st on the interference.

I agree with Adam & P.J.  However, the case books both say that if the catcher has his GLOVE over the plate at the time of the pitch it is catcher obstruction.  Pitch doesn't have to be a strike, the batter doesn't have to attempt to swing, the catcher doesn't have to move.  In the sample in the case books the only criteria is the catcher having his glove OVER the plate.  See  Topic book (see page 98, situation F) and Case Book (pg 64, situation F).  I don't see where this ruling is consistant with the Rules Book 8-1-3c as referenced in both case books.  Can anyone address this inconsistancy?