Interference or just a Dead Ball

[18597]

Mens Orthodox - Softball Canada.

Runner on first, outs not important. Wild pitch caroms off the backstop and rolls toward the on deck batter. Runner was off with the pitch and catcher is slow to get the ball. On deck batter stops ball with his bat, picks it up and tosses it to the catches as the runner rounds second and continues on to third base.

Both partner and I declared "dead ball" when the ball was touched. We sent the runner back to second. Even though the touch by the on-deck batter was intentional, we felt that the defense did not have a play on the runner, either at second or third. The runner had already touched second when "dead ball" was declared.

[SC Ump]

I am not familiar with either Canadian orthodox or reformed (j/k) rules. With that being said, I would agree with your ruling.

I would also agree with you that the on-deck batter "intentionally" touched the ball, but I don't think he intentionally interfered with the play. It sounded like he just didn't have his head in the game.