That was an earlier post
 

That was in an earlier post. When asked by Dakota for the rule, he said POE 33.

I've got a rule too. Its 8-7-J-4 which says interference with a deflected ball has to be intentional. These are two rules governing two different situations. One is with a batted ball; one with a deflected ball. The defense had an opportunity to make a play but failed to do so when the ball was deflected. Its true they still have a chance, but their protection is more limited now. Interference has to be intentional at this point. You can't ignore rule 8-7-J-4.

This is about interfering with a fielder, not the ball.

So is 8-7-4-J
 

8-7-J-4 is also interferring with a defender. 8-7-L is interferring with a ball.

Case Play 8.8-42 is on point.

R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B when B3 hits a ball to F5. The ball goes off of F5's glove and F6 tries to field the ball when R2 collides with F6. (a) As R2 tried to alter their path or (b) collides with F6 after having the opportunity to avoid F6 and make no attempt to avoid contact.

Ruling: (a) Live ball, no interference. (b) R2's actions are judged to be intentional. Dead ball, R2 is out, R1 returns to 3B, B3 awarded 1B.

This has to do with the same player who booted the ball making the play, I still think when this came up in the clinic, it was considered as the defense making a play and interference on the runner. Now, if it is off a fielder to another player as the casebook states, then yes it has to be intentional.

Maybe
 

However, 8-7-J-4 says "any defensive player" this includes the one who booted the ball. I realize the case play indicates another fielder, however, the case book doesn't provide examples of all possible plays. I don't believe ASA makes a distinction. At least it doesn't in the wording of rule 8-7-J-4. Was this a national clinic or a local one? If this is what ASA wants, then I'll change my position. However, based on the wording of rule 8-7-J-4 I see no difference between the fielder who booted the ball and another fielder. I can't see penalizing the offense for a defensive mistake unless the offense intentionally interfered.

The problem is we have two rules that conflict with each other and the rulebook does not clearly delineate which one takes precedence.

National staff.

Response from Dave Epperson in Kansas,

Yes, as long as any defensive player has the possibility of getting an out.
Yes, the runner is responsible for not interfering, to and include running out of the baseline to avoid contact.