Sometimes kids in the minors do the darndest things, so I try to get the answer before they do it. So, you have both a 'what if' and a 'I don't get it';

A. R1 attempts steal of SB. F2 launches ball to center field. R1 is now headed for home.
At what point does the batter (who has a great place to watch the game from:-)have to vacate the batter's box to avoid an interference call at home (assuming the ball has now found it's way in that direction)? And would the interference be based on 7.09(e)? Does number of outs matter?

B. What is the significance of 'before two outs and runner on third' in 7.09(d)? That is; how would it be different if there were two outs? Isn't the infraction at the plate the same event?

thanks,
SD

In A. the batter has to vacate the box when there is going to be a play at the plate and he has plenty of time to do so. In your example he has plenty of time so he should vacate as soon as he (you) realize there will be a play at the plate. Number of outs don't matter in your example. If we wants to stand and watch until the runner rounds third and heads home and the ball is on the way fine, but when the runner and the ball arrive he needs to be gone.

In B. 7.09(d) says that "the runner is out" if the batter interferes with 2 outs. With less than 2 outs the batter is out and runner returns to 3B. The batter would return to bat when the team is next at bat.

Thanks DG. All the pieces fit.

Actually, it's the opposite: With two outs the batter is out; with less than two outs, the runner is declared out.

Right, and the rationale is to impose the more severe penalty. With less than 2 out, it's more severe to lose R3 than to lose the batter. With 2 out, declaring the batter out ends the inning AND prevents the batter from coming up in the next inning.

Oops! I got that one bass ackwards.