R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd (a real speedster). Passed ball. Runner scores, and after she has crossed the plate the ball is retrieved by the catcher and thrown to the plate. The ball hits R1 who has already crossed the plate but there could have been a play on R2 who was about 4' from home.

Does it matter how far away from home R1 is?
Does it matter if you feel it is intentional?
What if she has just crossed the plate?

I think in a case like this, intent is EVERYthing-the way you word your scenario, it seems like R2 was the heels of R1,or close enough that R1 is either (A)still brushing off her uni or at worst (B) giving R2 help on slide/no slide...you wouldnt penalize the on deck batter in the same case, so you don't penalize R1 here

Intent is everything .
On a thrown ball (except going to first and the B/R is inside the diamond)there has to be intentional contact with the ball .

Speaking ASA.

Don't have it in front of me, but I believe there is a play in the 2005 casebook for this scenario.

Rachel, speaking ISF:
First of all I think about:Rule 1 Sec. 47. INTERFERENCE.
Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player
attempting to execute a play.

Debeau, you could be right 100% ONLY IF you assume R1 is STILL a runner (after she touched home plate... is she still a runner?)...
Infact:
Rule 8 Sec.9 THE RUNNER IS OUT
m. When he interferes with a fielder attempting to field a fair-batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown
ball.

In this case (and only IF you assume R1 is no more a runner) I would apply this:
Rule 8 Sec.9 THE RUNNER IS OUT
n. When, after a runner, batter or batter-runner has been declared out, or after a runner has scored, the runner,
batter or batter-runner interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A
runner continuing to run and drawing a throw will be considered a form of interference.
NOTE: The runner closest to home plate, at the time of the interference, will be called out.

If you decide to apply the last one (and I personally would have done so)... well, Rachel: the answer to your question n°1 is NO (the rule says 'opportunity to make a play' - that is a larger option instead of 'to make an out').
The answer to your question n°2 is NO, again (see what Rule 1 Sec.47 says - no intentionality is required then).
The answer to your question n°3 is... uh... who is 'SHE' - dis you mean R2?

Of course this is JMHO - I'm perfeclty aware this a controversial point...

Ciao ciao

#1. Yes, I would penalize the offense if this were the ODB.

#2. There is no indication R2 was even close to R1. The scenario specifically places R1 crossing the plate, ball being retrieved, INT on R1 and R2 is still 4' from the plate. To me, even in real time, that is not close.

Looks like this gets back to two issues we tried to resolve in the past:
1) Is an offense player who has crossed home plate still a "runner" for rule application purposes?
2) Does a retired/scored "runner" really have to instantly disappear (vaporize?) after either of those?

I would have to say it looks like the "opportunity to make a play" existed in this case, so it comes down to the intentional or not requirement.

A similar play I had...
 

R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd. BR bunts down the first base line. F3 fields and overthrows F2 as R1 scores while not sliding.

Ball is at fence, on the first base line extended. R2 rounds 3B and heads for home. R1, having scores, casually continues running while circling to her right, going toward her dugout on the 3B side. Just as F2 fields the ball and turns to toss it to F1 covering the plate, R1 runs between them and gets hit by the ball.

I think it was completely UNintentional on R1's part, but I still think it was proper that I ruled interference on R1 and R2 out. I would do the same if a batter was not paying attention and interferred.

Re: 1) Given that the rule talks about retired runners and runners who have scored in a separate rule, it would appear that while they are "runners", they are in a different class. Personally, I consider them in a similar class as base coaches and on-deck batters; people who have a right to be on the field, but who have an obligation to not interfere with the defense's right to make a play.

Re: 2) Again, a personal observation, but one which I think speaks for a lot of other posters. Retired or scored runners are certainly not expected to instantly disappear; if that were the intent of the rule, then "intentionally" would not be part of the rule. But, this form of "intentionally" does not, in my opinion, exclude that obligation to not interfere. What I guess I am saying is that any lack of of reasonably appropriate effort to not interfere is intentional. So, maybe that isn't the literal meaning of "intentional", but, as has been stated often, this ain't baseball.

I did not call interference in this case as R1 had just crossed the plate but I think I would have if R1 had taken a step or two more as she did know where the ball was coming from. It would have been a tough sell had I called it because she was so close to the plate and couldn't disappear. Had she kicked at the ball it would have been a no brainer.

I threw this out there so we could talk about softball rules again.

I guess this comes down to the umpire's judgment as to whether the runner who had scored was still in her "running" mode or heading toward the dugout or some other place on the field.

OTOH, for her to have been running the she was directly between the ball and the plate, the runner probably should have been aware of a play as the ball and catcher, by description of the play, had to be right in front of her.

Well, in this situation, you can only be half right.... Regardless of your call one side is PO. I don't you believe you have anything here. Interference is based on your jugement and the intent of the player or players, and the runner, according to your discription was just doing her job. A no call here is the right call. But, again, only one side will be pleased with the call