[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.

AFAIK, there was never a rule describing where the BR must run. It was a rule describing where the BR can run to avoid the specific interference call. So, now the runner CAN be ruled as interferring if hit in the back with a thrown ball within where the running lane used to be? (I must be missing something... )