No that wouldn't, with all due respect. You would be saying that on-deck batter interference with no obvious play is essentially not interference, where it most certainly could be, and then you should kill the ball and not let runners advance.Well, bureaucrats tend to do that sort of thing. It would be easier to just change the wording to "actually fix the darned thing!"
"If no play is obvious, no player is out, and runners are free to run at their own risk."
That should do it, I would say.
A simple example would be the on-deck batter in this play, through a momentary lapse, picks up the ball after it stops at her feet and tosses it to the catcher while she's still an appreciable distance away. That would be interference without an obvious play, and no way should the ball be kept live.
My last here: there are three possibilities that can happen here. Two are interference, where the ball must be ruled dead immediately. One would be where the ODB clearly hindered a play, so the result would be the closest runner to home being ruled out. The other would be with no obvious play, so runners return to their last legally touched bases.
The third possibility is simply incidental contact between the ball and the ODB while the ODB is in a place where she's allowed to be (in her circle, or in a position to direct a scoring runner), and that would result in just keeping the ball live. If you really need language for this, just add a separate sentence under each sanction's ODB interference rule that says, "If a thrown or pitched ball accidentally hits the on-deck batter, this is incidental contact and the ball remains live."