Correct. The question that came up in that caseplay was if the appeal on the trailing runner made the appeal on the preceding runner a time play by removing the force. Evans said it does not, and Wendelstedt also has the same opinion.
Yes. A runner has an absolute obligation to avoid hindering a protected fielder fielding a batted ball (the only exception is if a fielder misplays the ball and he is chasing after it and is not within a step and a reach.)
He told me. "Dang, I was hoping to keep him from hitting that." This was one of the smarter catchers I've ever worked with, and the only one with heart and/or talent on that team. He'd put the whole game on his shoulders. It was irrelevant, because the situation was different. R2, LHP, big jump and F1 doesn't stop in his delivery. F2 lunges forward to get the ball, batter gets glove and ball and an infield hit because the defense let up thinking it was a dead ball.
This logic I can understand. I don't agree, but I understand, and I don't agree because of the savvy catcher I mentioned above. If you enforce it this way, the catcher has every incentive to prevent the batter from hitting the ball in situations without a runner on first.
So a catcher can deliberately cause CI to avoid allowing the balk to be superseded by a hit? No. Just because an incident results in a delayed dead ball does not mean that what happens after that doesn't occur. You enforce in the order they occurred. The play results in the enforcement of the balk in this case, and because the penalty for the balk does not meet the criteria for ignoring the CI penalty, then the offense has the choice of the play or the penalty.