Baseball, Pro Rules.
R1, R2. Count 3-0.
Pitch gets by the catcher, who does not run after it.
Ball 4 is called. Next batter walks toward the batter's box and stops the pitched ball before it can leave the playing field. Colleague ruled similar to the rules on spectator's interference, that he had to undo the effects of the on-deck-batter stopping the ball, declared the ball dead, gave the BR 1B and both runners a base each, which they would have been entitled to anyway by means of being forced. Was that ruling correct? If yes, and if the count had been 2-0 or alike, what should have been called then?
In Softball (ISF Rules), interference by the on-deck-batter is explicitely covered, yet restricted to interference on catching fly balls (batter would be out) and attempts to retire a runner (runner closest to HP would be out). The catcher did not make that attempt, fly balls do not apply. In baseball (pro rules), it is not covered at all.
Sincerely
Joe Lissner, German Federal League #39

Interference by a person authorized to be on the field: 3.15 or 3.16

If "stopping the ball" was intentional, then award what the umpires think would have happened. If "stopping the ball" was u nintentional, then play on.

In this case I would do the same and just award the runner(s) the appropriate base(s). Since F2 did not go after it I am not going to reward the defence. If F2 had gone after it and the runners were trying to advance beyond their allowed base, you could have a case for interference by the the on deck and the batter would be out and the runners return to their original base.

Thank you for your quick answers! Bob's reply sounds reasonable to me. Jim: in softball, from my stomach I do agree with your idea of punishing the batter, in case the F2 is being kept from playing the ball, in baseball (pro rules), however, although my stomach tells me the same, I don't find anything written , do you?
Curiously
Joe Lissner