Every one can get a "brain fart". For example, when I first read the OP, I visualed a poor throw by F2. But that didn't jive with the responses given, so I went back and read it again. On a second read-through, I think the key phrase is, "Play would have been close at home plate." It could only have been close if it was a quality throw, so that changed my visualization of the play completely, and I have BI here too. Batter should have looked to see where the ball really went; a couple steps up the line would have cleared the throwing lane.

The batter vacated the area around the plate. Unless he interfered with a player attempting to make a play, I've got nothing.

The batter has to interfere with a fielder's ability to make a throw, receive a throw, or attempt to tag a base or runner, to be guilty of interference. Ten feet from the plate, he didn't interfere with F2's ability to make a throw from near the screen, and based on the OP saying the play would have been close, F1 or whoever was covering home must have been well removed from the batter, so the batter didn't interfere with that fielder, either.

Interfering with a thrown ball is far different than interfering with a fielder's attempt to make a throw or receive a thrown ball. The batter must vacate the area around home plate so as not to interfere with the PLAY. He did. If he interferes with the THROW, it must be intentional.

You got it wrong.

Publius,
I don't agree. 7.08(b) says a runner may not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
7.09(c) is the applicable rule for this situation, and it covers either a batter or runner on a play at home before two are out and there is a runner on third. They may not hinder a play at the plate. "Play" is defined in the MLBUM, and a throw to put out a runner is one example of a play. Intent is not required.

A throw to put out a runner is a play. A thrown ball isn't.

In the OP, what do you think F2 was trying to do when the threw the ball?

Yes, and what's your point?

Yes, it is. You need to have a thrown ball to have a throw.

He was making a play on R3.

You do indeed, but that doesn't make it a play.

Necessary but not sufficient. ;)

dash,
So what are trying to say?

Publius wrote that he doesn't have interference unless it hinders a fielder's ability to make or receive a throw. In the OP, the throw itself is interfered with, and so Publius doesn't have interference without intent.

I disagreed, citing the rules. You quoted my post, and made a true statement, from which I infer that you think your statement had some relevance. But I can't tell if you're agreeing with Publius or agreeing with me, or have some other opinion.

Hence my question: What's your point?

A thrown ball in an attempt to a retire a runner is a play, as in the OP.

The definition of ‘play or attempted play’ in the MLBUM is in a specific context: the awarding of bases, and appeal plays. The purpose of 7.09(c) is to clarify the runner (not the batter) is out if interference occurs on a play at the plate with less than two outs--it isn't to determine IF interference occurred.

Here's what I learned over the years; you can accept or reject it as you wish.

For purposes of the OP, the batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" and not a batter.

Jaksa/Roder: "…Examples of 'offensive teammates' include:

a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an 'offensive teammate' in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

b) an on-deck batter.

c) a player who had been a runner but (who) has touched home and is signaling to a following runner…

The rule relevant to this play is 7.11: The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Evans interpretation:” This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional.”

J/R interpretation:

“It is interference if an ‘offensive teammate’ :

1) (B)latantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.

2) (I)ntentionally hinders or impedes a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.”

MLBUM 6.16: “If a person authorized to be on the field unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to make a play, the ball is alive and in play.”

You might not accept J/R’s interpretation that the batter is not “the batter” when evaluating this play. If you don’t, the interpretations above aren’t necessarily applicable. It’s a good, common-sense approach to me, though, and I don’t accept everything in their manual as gospel.

I was taught that absent intent, which is always interference, the offensive member must interfere with a player, not the ball, to be penalized. In order to interfere with a defensive player’s play at the plate, a member of the offense must actually be NEAR the plate, and his actions must actually hinder the defensive player’s efforts. Both are necessary to justify an interference call.

In the OP, the batter/’offensive teammate’ vacated the area needed to make a play, and did not intend to get hit by the throw.

Play the bounce.

The flaw in your logic is the fundamental error exhibited in bold. Hence, everything after it is incorrect.

An offensive teammate is someone who is not a current participant (i.e. bullpen personnel, retired runners, scored runners, on-deck batters, etc.)

Well, I promise you that in professional baseball, there would be no BI called. The 'flaw' in my logic is widely accepted there.