[greymule]

Nothing in the PBUC or Evans, either. The only authoritative source that delves into this is the BRD, which is pretty clear that when a retired runner intentionally decoys the defense into playing on him and (1) another runner advances, or (2) the defense gives up a play on another runner, the retired runner has committed INT in OBR and NCAA but not in Fed.

In the rundown play, the BRD does recommend that "if B1 remains at 1B during the 'rundown,' do not assess a penalty.

The BRD also emphasizes intent on the part of the runner and backs that up with official interpretations.

The BRD is not perfect. Some MLB umpire might disagree with Fitzpatrick. It's happened before. But I'm going with the BRD interpretation until I'm persuaded otherwise.

It's clear to me that the disagreement lies in the interpretation of the "by that act alone." I take it to mean simply continuing in the basepaths, as opposed to committing intentional acts designed to confuse the defense. To me, intentionally decoying the defense is something other than "continuing to advance."

So we're at a dead end unless somebody can supply an official case play or ruling.