[AtlUmpSteve]

ASA 8-7.P makes it interference if an already retired or scored runner intentionally interferes; ASA 8-7.O makes it interference if a coach intentionally interferes. 8-7.O makes it clear that if the ball unintentionally hits the coach, it is not interference; and we know an unintentional hitting of the coach is not a blocked ball, it remains live. Base coaches are "engaged in the game", and are given (my words) certain partial immunity from accidental interference (other than keeping a fielder from fielding a batted ball for an out).

We also state that runners that are put out are not expected to go "poof"; they are there engaged in the game, at least until they are out, and have (again, my words) partial immunity from accidental interference. Using an expected (if not specified) consistency, I have to conclude that an equally unintentional hitting of a retired runner would also not be a blocked ball, and the ball would remain live. Retired runners are, in my mind, also engaged in the game to some degree; they are expected to be on the field, but they cannot interfere with impunity. Just as the coaching box and batters box are not safe havens, there are no safe havens defined for retired runners; but they don't go poof.

Now, I will extend my personal definition of intentional in these cases to include failing to avoid or failing to attempt to avoid if either are reasonably to be expected; but don't believe I have a blocked ball here without interference.

JMO; no black and white support available either way.