[greymule]

I remember the play from a few years ago. I don't see much of a parallel here. We know that a runner who is obstructed is not free to commit interference, but the cases the book cites are quite different (such as an obstructed runner interfering with a throw or running into a fielder).

Batter's swing that hits F2's glove still results in a hard liner that blindsides the runner from 1B as she is advancing to 2B. Do you supersede the OBS there?

But not only is the violation in the OP not interference, it is not even a LBR violation. It is simply the runner leaving the base before the pitcher releases the ball.

Suppose that F1, in her delivery, fails to release the ball on the first revolution of the windmill and instead goes around again and releases the ball on a second revolution. Illegal pitch is called. However, the runner on first left the bag after the ball would normally have been released, but before the release on the second, illegal, revolution. Obviously the running "violation" doesn't negate the IP.

I agree, however, that you can find evidence in the book for either ruling, but not conclusive evidence. So we need a case play, unless there is already one that I don't know about. In a code in which the offense can benefit when a runner deliberately clotheslines a fielder to prevent a double play, I'd never say I'm certain.