Interference?

From your description, I might...because the ball was not immediately fielded, the batter has an obligation to vacate any area necessary to make a play. If I agree with your assessment that the catcher's delay on the throw was to avoid the batter, I have interference.

Yeah, but it sounds like that would be rewarding the defense for making a bad play.  OP says that the runner beats the pitcher to the plate. Plus he implies that there would be no impediment to the throw if the pitcher was where he was supposed to be.  

Good points JCG and the reason for my contemplation.  I did not want to award the defense since the pitcher was late.  However, the batter was right on the plate and would have been in the way of the throw even if the pitcher was anywhere but on the first base side of home plate. 

Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

An interference call doesn't necessarily entail a judgment as to what would have happened if the interference hadn't occurred.

What would have happened matters less than what did happen.

In the situation presented by the OP, the batter has one job on this play, and that is to de-assify the area around the plate where the play is going to happen.

Just being there creates the potential for hindering or confusing the defense. 

If the batter doesn't do what he's supposed to do, the umpire does not have to make guesses about counterfactuals, such as whether the throw would have arrived in time or whether the pitcher would have have arrived on time.

All the umpire has to do is see that the batter's unauthorized presence hindered, impeded, or confused either the pitcher or the catcher. 

It's not "rewarding" the defense; it's holding the batter accountable for getting out of the way. 

So I'm with Matt. I might have interference here. If I thought the presence of the batter deterred the catcher from making a prompt throw, or if I thought the pitcher slowed down out of confusion or to avoid a collision with someone who shouldn't have been there, I would call interference. And I wouldn't expend any brain cells wondering if the runner would have been out.

What great input.  I love this forum!

Thanks guys.

The batters presence in the batters box with a play at the plate influences the play unfairly....Interference in my opinion.

Two outs throw the ball to first inning over, no runs score, even if the runner "scored"....force out at first.

POLOGREEN posted:

Two outs throw the ball to first inning over, no runs score, even if the runner "scored"....force out at first.

?

Better yet save the throw and tag him. 

With one or none out.  Would have to be very blatant IMO to call Int here. 

Would have to see it of course, was the double pump because of the BR or because F1 was late and still 15' away?  In the BB is not in a direct line with HP from 1BL extended.

I know I'm getting to this discussion late, but where does it say there was two strikes on the batter?

GOBAMA84 You are correct!!!  The only thing I see is  "The catcher double pumps because the RH batter is still in the box and has not moved and is in a direct throwing lane from F2 to the pitcher. "I assumed that (Bad on my part) the catcher wass in the act of throwing it was an uncaught third strike!

Thanks again for the input guys.  It was not a dropped third strike situation so no out possible on the batter.  The batter was in a direct line between the catcher and the pitcher and had ample time to remove himself from the area but chose to stay in the box.  If I didn't know better I would say he was coached to do so.  Later in the game the coach instructed his batters to move out of the area on a passed ball with a runner on third.

Then it is INTERFERENCE on the batter..with 2 outs the batter is out! Less than 2 out runner is out.