Batter interference?

[Jr10234]

Scenario: Runner on 3. Wild pitch/past ball, catcher retreats after ball, batter steps backwards out of the box, runner heads home.
Catcher retrieves the ball, pitcher is not in position, so catcher makes a beeline for the runner and runs smack into the back of the batter. The runner is on the baseline, directly on the other side of the batter.
Ump calls runner safe.
Appeal:batter interfered by not removing herself from the play. The catcher was running at the player but blocked by batter.
Decision: no play at home, no interference.

 

[Ajaywill]

As described, this sounds as if Interference should have been called on the batter.

 

[djcarter1966]

It could depend on exactly where the catcher was when the player crossed the plate and what the umpire meant by "no play at the plate". This happens all the time when there is a passed ball batter steps back and is technically between the catcher and the plate but if the catcher turns around with the ball as the run crosses the plate there is no interference; now does it matter if she is ten steps away or three steps away...I don't know?

 

[inde53546]

I'm sure the ump has to use his/her judgement on the timing. The catcher would likely have to have been able to make a play on the runner for interference to be called.