My comment applied ONLY to the part where it was suggested that umpires can/should judge if an out can be made for (any) interference to be ruled; not if it was an appropriate conclusion in an imaginary case play. I am discussing the degree that judgment (only) might consider, not a hasty conclusion that there was little chance of an out.

At the same time, let us be careful in "assume the reason", as you refer above. We are to make judgments on what has occured; you are close to treading in the "can't judge intent" water that has been removed from the offense, and should not be considered on the defense. Judge the act, not the reason.

If the batter committed an act that can be judged to hinder, and there was a possible play that it may have hindered; don't go backwards and try to rule on the intent of the catcher in pulling the throw down. Unless you KNOW why no throw was made (saw her lose control, no one in position to make the play, or the F5 wave a throw off, for example), rule on the acts and facts you do have.

A damn lot of "hearing" going on around here.

Waiting for Tommy to stop by

As long as this was such a thorough discussion, I decided to add this.

In which rule set and under what conditions, is a runner ruled out for batter interference?

There's a rulebook for that. Several actually - one for each ruleset. Quoting the relevant sections by ruleset here is a silly exercise, given that you can read them just as easily there.

Okay, I'll play.

Under NCAA rules, a runner is out for batter's interference if she attempts to score with fewer than two outs, and the batter hinders the play at the plate. With two outs, the batter is the one ruled out so that she doesn't lead off the next inning.

I don't believe that same ruling exists in FED or ASA. Under those sets, the batter would be out and the runner would be returned to third base.

Off the top of my head, I think that's the only situation where a batter interferes and a runner is ruled out.

Add to Manny's, and maybe not what you mean, but,

A runner is always out if the interference is by a retired batter (after strike three).

You are correct, although not always easy to find. :rolleyes:
Pardon my laziness :o, but thanks Manny & Steve. :cool:

Not specifically what I meant, but good reinforcement.

That would be runner closest to home, as with any retired BR or R.

Not exactly the same thing, but.....

I could see a situation where the batter swings and misses (strike 3), then intentionally knocks the ball away from the catcher attempting to tag the batter-runner while the runner from third is coming home. In this case, the batter had become a batter-runner when the third strike was dropped, and committed interference which prevented a double play.

It is something I have never seen, but ....

The question specifically mentioned a batter, not a retired batter or a batter-runner, which are covered by different rules. Unless I'm wrong, I think I captured the only scenario where a runner is out by the batter's act.

In your scenario, it's possible to rule a double play if you feel one could have taken place. But the hindrance was with the tag of the batter-runner (I assume the third strike was uncaught; otherwise, why would the catcher try to tag the BR?) so it should be quite evident that the catcher had a potential follow-on play on the runner from third.