one more rule situation

[default]

one out, runners on 1st and second. a easy grounder hit to second baseman, the runner going to second stops and does a stutter step in front of second baseman (it appeared to be an attempt to block her view) but she did not make contact with the ball. The plate umpire instantly says "daedball - runner is out" and runs onto the field. the second baseman throws out the batter at first.

What happens to the batter and the runner advancing to 3rd?

on a side note. As a coach I handled this poorly after the ruling was given to me.

 

[default]

if it was ruled a dead ball the runner stays on second and batter is safe

if it was a delayed dead ball which is what the call should have been the batter is out also and inning over

the only thing i do not understand if there was no contact how either call could be made.
i know if a batter stops and steps backwards going to first to avoid a tag that is a dead ball

 

[default]

why would it be a delayed dead ball, that is for obstuction only. When a fielder is making a play and a runner intenionally trys to block her view . This is interference .Nfs rule 2-32 art.1 interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat ?who illegally impedes. hinders, or confuses any fielder. dead ball runner out batter to first all runners return to their base at time of infraction

 

[default]

but why reward the team for an obvious interference by giving the batter a free base. this was almost and automatic double play. It would pay to interefere everytime in this kind of situation?

 

[default]

If the umpire judged that the runner's stutter-steps were designed to block the fielders view of the ball, or distract the fielder from making the play, then interference is the proper call.

On runner interference the ball is immediately dead. No further plays can be made by the defense. The interfering runner is out. All other runners must return to the base last touched. The batter-runner is placed on first base.

Why is this not a smart move to make on any potential double play ball? Because the rules allow the umpire to also call out the batter-runner if (here's that magic phrase again) in his judgement the interference prevented the defense from turning a double play.

That judgement should be based on the position of the runners when the interference occured, how hard the ball was hit and whether-or-not the defense had a legitimate chance at the double play.

By your own description this was "almost an automatic double play". But "almost" isn't a sure thing and doesn't satisfy the rule. The umpire's judgement must be that either it is or is not a double play ball. It seems that the umpire in your game judged that it was not and correctly applied the rule. ?