[greymule]

I can see where being grazed by a throw that is caught might not be interference if the ball isn't substantively deflected and F3 catches it anyway. But how about this one?:

No outs, Abel on 3B off on a suicide squeeze. Baker bunts 20 feet down the 1B line. Abel scores. F2 picks up the ball and fires to 1B. Baker is running in fair territory, and the ball hits him squarely in the back. But as Baker was leaning forward while running, the ball continues upward over him and is caught by F3 for the out. I think you have to call interference. Now if you do, or if the ball is not caught, do you send Abel back to 3B?

It's true that if, with a runner stealing, the batter appears to interfere with F2 but the runner is out anyway, the interference is considered not to have happened. But applying that theory to batted balls, even a fly ball that is caught, could be problematic.

Abel on 1B is running on the pitch. Baker hits a bloop that F4 charges, moving toward 2B. Abel collides unintentionally with F4, knocks him down, and starts to return to 1B. F4, on the ground, catches the ball anyway. F4, from his disadvantaged position on the ground, fires toward 1B but throws the ball away.

Better that you called immediate interference and killed the play, even if the call appeared to reward the offense.