Interference or nothing

[coachump4]

1 out runners on 1st and 2nd swinging strike on batter catcher drops the ball runner going to 3rd and the catcher never makes a throw. Batter had one foot in box and one out and UIC calls runner on third out for interference on batter as he said catcher couldn't throw due to him being in the way. 

[Richvee]

First off, if it is interference, it is batter's interference, batter is out, runner(s) return. (unless it was strike 3)

In order to have BI here, the batter needs to hinder F2's attempt at throwing out the baserunner. If F2 never even attempted a throw, there's no interference. 

[webspinnre]

When you say never made a throw do you mean stood there and watched, or do you mean stood up to throw, pumped, and decided not to because batter was in the way?

[Guest]

Not 100% sure I didn't see it just heard about it but from my understanding he pumped but didn't throw it.

[maven]

Not 100% sure I didn't see it just heard about it but from my understanding he pumped but didn't throw it.

​That could be BI: difficult to know without seeing it. The rule does NOT require that F2 actually throw it, only that his attempt to play on the runner be hindered by the batter. With the batter having a foot completely outside the box, he is liable for BI if he hinders F2. That's a lot of IF's, but this call involves a good deal of judgment.

What does not require judgment is the penalty. Richvee has it right: unless it was strike 3, the batter is out for his INT, and the runners return. If it were strike 3, then the batter is out on the K, R2 is out for the BI, and that's 3 outs (otherwise, the other runner returns).