Interference or let it play

[UmpIowa]

Sorry for the poor video. The PU called batter interference on the throw to home. The batter was outside the box back and toward on deck circle. 

VID_39061130_080405.mp4

[ElkOil]

I don't have INT on that.  I don't know LL rules, but the batter did everything he could to get out of the way.  He can't be blamed because the throw was off line.

[UmpIowa]

The first time I watched it I could understand the call and just chalk it up to judgement. But then I looked at it in relation to the plate and don't see it. 

I know there is no mention of proximity to the base or play, but is it fair to give the batter the benefit of the doubt and assume the throw must be in a position to make the play.

I struggle with interference/obstruction so just looking for guidance. 

[maven]

I can't tell where the ball went. That's an important consideration here: the batter must get out of the fielder's way, not necessarily the ball's way.

If it was close enough for F2 to have made a play, and the batter hindered F2 in getting to the throw, then I might have INT. The rule (well, OBR, so maybe LL is the same) requires the batter to vacate the space needed by the defense to make a play — not merely to TRY to vacate that space. He can be negligently (rather than intentionally) liable for INT here (and it's teammate INT, not batter INT).

If the throw was so poor that F2 had no chance, then that's nothing: no hindrance = no INT.

[UmpIowa]

This game is played under FED rules. I am not sure where the ball went either, but when looking at F2 in relation to the plate I don't see a play here.  My opinion obviously. 

[maven]

This game is played under FED rules.

The applicable FED rule is a bit different. First, the batter has to TRY to vacate the area, and a "good faith effort" is sufficient to absolve him of INT. Second, this is treated as a kind of batter INT and penalized accordingly. See 7-3-5d.

[UmpIowa]

So it appeared to me the batter tried to vacate.

The penalty was awarded inappropriately as well. In this instance they returned the runner to 3rd and called the batter out. According to 7-3.5d the runner is out and batter is still at bat.  

Is this correct? 

[maven]

So it appeared to me the batter tried to vacate.

The penalty was awarded inappropriately as well. In this instance they returned the runner to 3rd and called the batter out. According to 7-3.5d the runner is out and batter is still at bat.  

Is this correct? 

Without knowing where the ball went, it's difficult to assess the judgment call (hindrance, no attempt to vacate the area).

As for the penalty, assuming less than 2 outs, you are correct: R2 out, batter remains at the plate.