I say this also applies and I would argue it on such a play. Whether the batter meant to draw the defense off or not...
The interpretation is that this is NOT automatically interference. To interfere with a play means that the player must impede the defense's ability to record an out. Since this batter cannot be retired with a throw to first, if the catcher throws to first nothing was interfered with- no out to be had equals no interference. That is, the catcher was NOT "attempting to execute a play" as the rule requires.
If the catcher was making a play on the other runner- who is liable to be put out- then the batter could be called out if she interfered with the throw or the catcher while out of the batter's box. That can really only happen two ways on this one: If the runner is going to second and the batter actually interferes with that throw, or; If the runner is going back into first and the batter actually interferes with that throw.
Otherwise, all you have is a live ball and an unecessary throw being made by the catcher- no interference.