[rwest]

However, in my opinion this statment is still wrong...

Batter-Runner interference does not have to be intentional. That is why my tittle says "technical." We no longer have a batter (one set of rules), we have a batter-runner (different set of rules.)

This appears to me to be a blanket statement. One could argue that I'm taking it out of context. That was not my intent. I read the sentence as saying that intent is never required on Batter-runner interference and that is simple not true. A Batter-runner has to INTENTIONALLY interfere with a thrown ball, per rule 8.2.F.

Suppose the ball had gotten by the catcher and rolled to the backstop. The batter, now a batter-runner, is still in the box when the catcher throws the ball, trying to get the runner advancing to 3rd out. The ball hits the batter-runner. The batter-runner did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball. In this context, your statement above would be wrong. Intent is required.

So I agree that intent is not required in your original example. I just disagree with what I thought was a blanket statment. If you didn't mean it that way, then I retract by statements.