[WestMichiganBlue]

Dakota said "OK - that's your judgment, but the rule book (ASA) says "...may be considered a form of interference..." not must be considered..."

FED 8.6.17: A runner continuing to run AND drawing a throw - may be considered a form of interference. In the original scenario, both conditions existed - (1) the runner DID continue to run, and (2) the runner DID draw a throw. Even though we were not there, I think a good case for interference can be assumed.

Greymule said "The umpire cannot nullify Abel's run and award two outs on that play."

I did not say the run was nullified; I suggested that two outs could be called. That is based on FED casebook 8.6.17 COMMENT: The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when after being declared out OR after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes . . . .

Now maybe that is poor writing (by use of the word OR in the comment). Perhaps they are suggesting that if a runner is called out, and then interferes (including continuing to run and draw a throw), then, because the runner is already out, the umpire can call another runner out. (Just like calling a double play if you believe that interference was intentional to break up a double play opportunity.) But the "OR" suggest that you could call two outs after a runner has scored, then intentionally interferes. I am not sure I would take that literally.

WMB