Agreed. No matter how slow the ball was rolling or how fast the runner was running or how slow the catcher was moving a pitched ball that goes into DBT is a one base award from TOP. If offense interferes with the ball from going into dead ball territory penalize as if it would have absent the interference.

I looked in my J/R last night and there was a situation similar but not exactly identical to what is described under the interference section interps.

Bases loaded, Wild pitch, runners advance on wild pitch, ball rolls over to ODB who picks up the ball and flips to the catcher. Ruling: Time, dead ball, all runners are allowed to keep their one base due to the wild pitch but are not allowed to advance any further due to the interference by the ODB.

The difference here is that the ODB picked up the ball.

How can anyone award third on this play?

Pitch into dead ball territory... one base TOP.
or
Interference for offense not vacating space needed for defense to make a play... runner is out. (7.11)

Personally, if the ball was obviously going into DBT, I'd give one base. Have called similar sitch several times this past year... Ground ball to infield, wild throw to first which is going into dugout, hits bucket which coach is sitting on in front of dugout opening. Two bases time of pitch. No arguments.

Don't award offense for the offense making a mistake.

The entire issue obviously hinges on whether ODB intentionally or unintentionally contacted the ball.
Here's what we know for sure.
1. F1 makes bad pitch
2. R1 is stealing on pitch
3. ODB is legally on the field where he belongs
4. ODB makes no move to intentionally touch ball

I've got nothing.

ODB may be daydreaming, checking out the coeds in the stands, concentrating on swing thoughts, watching R1s steal attempt (very likely)
Any number of things could have taken his attention off the ball for a second and kept him from reacting. And just as important, I doubt very seriously that ODB realized that if the ball goes in DBT R1 only gets 2nd. So what's his motivation for not getting out of the way?
I'm definitely giving the benefit of the doubt in this case to the ODB, if he's not taking intentional initative to contact ball, I'm considering it accidental.

Do you make up other rules too?

Care to elaborate?
I'm not seeing any made up rules

ODB may be doing what you suggest, but if he is, he is not doing his job. As Evans teaches, everyone on the field, even coaches and ODBs have a job to do. Part of ODB's job is to not interfere. When someone is contacted by a live ball, umpires consider if that personn was attempting to do his job. In this case, ODB was not. R1 goes back to second.

I agree, but as you say there is judgement involved.

Tell me what you would do in this sitch:

No DBT fence only lines past dug out.

B1 hits single to short left. BR makes very wide turn. Immediately after BR touches first, 1BC, standing in his box, turns toward 1st base dugout to motion for his courtesy runner. F7 in short left throws wild behind BR and ball hits 1BC square in back. Ball was obviously headed to DBT.
Do you kill it or play on?

I have nothing, but according to Evans 1BC was not doing or attempting to do his job and play should be killed. Is this correct?

The made up rule seems to be: if the ODB fails to deliberately contact a ball, then the contact is incidental (or accidental).
In fact, the ODB is obligated to stay out of the way, and if he negligently fails to do so, then he is liable to be called for interference. Since the burden is on him to stay out of the way, he is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt (although I wouldn't go overboard here either, since the defense has also screwed up).

Seems to me that:

1. the coach was doing his job.

2. he did not have an oportunity to avoid the ball.

Nothing similar at all to the OP. Why kill the ball?

He did have the opportunity but he chose to turn his back

Come on Garth

The inference you made regarding Evans was that the 1BC and ODB have the job to avoid contact with the ball.
It's either their job or it's not. In my sitch the 1BC turns his back to a live ball and you're excusing it. In the OP I presented the possibility that ODB was doing something else besides watching the ball(same as 1BC) and you have interference.

These are very similar. In both cases a person in their legal spot in LBT unknowingly get hit by a live ball headed toward DBT.
Tell me what's different?

Edited
BTW, I'm not suggesting interference on the OP is the wrong call. I'm saying it's a judgement call and an umpire is within the rules and intent of the rules to have a no call. Which is, based on my visualizing the OP, what I would do.

I'd phrase it as "being in the way" vs. "willful indifference" (which is not my term)

I believe that.
Way too many syllables.

Willful indifference isn't what I proposed.

I proposed the "what if" ODB wasn't watching the ball when he got hit?

Umpire has to judge if ODB

a. intentionally contacted ball
b. willful indifference caused contact
c. Attempted to avoid but was unable
d. Wasn't watching when contact was made.

I believe that A and B result in interference
C and D do not require a call in this situation

Steven,
How can someone get hit intentionally and unknowingly at the same time?