It's a nice 5-page thread of it's own, isn't it?
I believe the last time this was discussed here, R3's status as "runner" remained just that until R2 legally scored (and, according to some, remained "Runner" until after the play has ended).
Consider the definition of runner - it does not exclude R3 in this sitch. Consider the physical assist rule - doesn't specify whether said runner could have already scored. (Other rules (like interference) where it wants this runner treated differently DO specify a difference between a runner who has already scored and one who has not).
Try the converse. Try to show, via the rulebook, that R3 is NOT allowed to physically assist R2. I believe you would lose that in a protest (a long, drawn out one, admittedly).
So - I'm curious to learn what happened in the real-life sitch. Who got themselves ejected over this one?
