Make the call -
 

No outs. R3 only. Batter squares to bunt and pops up. As F2 attempts to get out of the box to field the ball, BR runs into him, intentionally, nothing malicious. Place the runner(s), call the out(s).

If you'd rule differently under any rule set, please make the distinction.

Is B/R moving in the general direction of first base?

Could be nothing, could be INT.

Intentionally? How would you judge that? He doesn't have to stop because:

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

Let's assume BR was going in the general direction of 1B. Let's also assume that his choice of path makes it obvious that he intended to run into F2.

I realize we could "prove intent" all day. But that won't answer the question in the op.

If R3 is moving (squeeze play), then I get two out.

Otherwise, BR is out, R3 returns.

Just taking your play as written.

If you judge the act to be intentional then you have have to look at the actions of R3, if he is trying to advance then he is out and the batter continues to hit. If he is not attempting to advance then the batter is out and R3 stays at 3rd. NCAA, and I believe the same is true in OBR, no idea in fed.

I'm not sure I understand the piece of your post that states "then he is out and the batter continues to hit."

I don't think I've read that before. Can you expand on that please?

Huh?

I really have a hard time picturing this. He's headed toward first and you consider the choice of path as intent to interfere? I'm wondering if you were unaware of the OBR comment and are now in yeahbut mode.

I'll go look it up for ya

NCAA rule 7-11 page 87.

f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;
PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time
of interference.
Exceptions—
(1) If the runner is advancing to home plate and there are fewer than two
outs, the runner, instead of the batter, is out.
(2) The batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out,
or if the runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
(3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play.
(4) If a batter/runner and a catcher fielding the ball make contact, no call
shall be made unless either player attempts to alter the play.

Look at exception (1)

No, Rich, I'm not in Yeah-but mode. I was trying to come up with something as intentional that would be visible on the internet. Might have been a bad choice. Picture something that you can as intentional and use that. I didn't intend (sorry) to debate intent. You can debate that all night, and all day tomorrow and...

Do you have an answer to the situation or not? I've been around internet umpring long enough to avoid the yeah but...plus we have enough of that in the caught 3K foul bunt attempt thread.

If it makes you sleep better tonight, my initial response when I was asked this question was that we have nothing, BR has a right to run, F2 has a right to field the ball. So yeah, I know the stinking rule. Then the original question was changed to "ok BR intentionally interfers..." and I have answered it. I am posing the question here because there are some that are helpful. You are usually one of those. I'm not sure what stuck in your craw this time.

My problem is that the person asking, had an answer, much as I do. However, when I answered with the same response that bob has given me (thank you, bob) he said that was wrong. I have yet to be able to find proof to defend his answer. Again, so I post here to see if anyone gives me that answer. I'll enlighten everyone to that response later. For now, I'm curious as to what Rich and a few others have to say about the sitch - other than wth is intent.

OK sorry - I didn't clarify this for you in my last reply. RH batter, ball is down the 1BL, F2 is still in foul territory headed that way and BR "swerves" over to where F2 is and runs into him rather than staying on the line, or even on the fair side as most RH batters would leaving the batter's box.

That's just ONE way "his path" could become intent...

Look at exception 4 - in my scenario, one of the players is attempting to alter the play. So who's out in #4?

Look at that would ya, it's not such a TWP afterall. They wrote it in a rule book!!

Let's go with your answer for now (still clarifying the whole thing) - if R3 is advancing, you say he's out, put the batter back in the box. Does the pitch count?

No for a "yeah-but" - these are batter's interference, and the batter is actually now a runner. Do the BI rules still apply?