Batter Interference on a Walk?

[Rock Bottom]

R2, pitcher throws ball 4, BR starts toward first and hinders the catcher's throw to third to catch R2 stealing.  There still can be interference on a base on ball, is that correct?  So, BR is out, and R2 returns to second? Is that correct? And does the answer vary from OBR vs. Fed?

[Senor Azul]

Here’s the official interpretation that can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190):

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called.

For the FED the BRD states that there is no provision and to treat it as in OBR.

[noumpere]

IF it was the batter--who is now a batter-runner (and not the bat, for example) and it wasn't intentional, this is play on.

[beerguy55]

17 minutes ago, Rock Bottom said:

R2, pitcher throws ball 4, BR starts toward first and hinders the catcher's throw to third to catch R2 stealing.  There still can be interference on a base on ball, is that correct?  So, BR is out, and R2 returns to second? Is that correct? And does the answer vary from OBR vs. Fed?

After he gets ball four he is no longer a batter, he's a runner...does that change your thoughts?

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

IF it was the batter--who is now a batter-runner (and not the bat, for example) and it wasn't intentional, this is play on.

Agree. The applicable standard is: INT with a thrown ball must be intentional.

FED's case play about a thrown bat hitting the throw applies a different standard, because F2 cannot reasonably be expected to play around a flying bat (which is under the batter's control and thus his responsibility). 

F2 can be expected to play around the BR, esp. on a throw to 3B.

[Rock Bottom]

Thanks everyone!!!