I wouldn't see this as a deflected ball. Note the OP specifically says F4 did not step forward or backward, so there was nothing unanticipatable about the fielder's movements (like there could be with a deflected ball).

True, but I don't see intent (implied or actual) in the OP.

In my view, the reason intent remains in the deflected ball rule is to account for the unpredictable nature of where a deflected ball will go.

That does not apply here.

Where does it state that if the fielder does not field the ball perfectly that the protection disappears? The only impact on the runner is it took the fielder a bit longer than it otherwise would have to glove the ball securely. The fielder was there in one spot all along. The runner merely chose to not alter her path.

It seems to me you either apply the fielding a batted ball rule or if you choose to apply the deflected ball rule, the fact that the runner made no attempt to avoid the fielder is enough to rule intent.

The deflected ball rule kind of implies that it's NOT interference unless the runner does something intentional to interfere. I think we can throw that one out here.

The issue is that the rules protect a fielder while she's fielding a ball. The rules protect a fielder while she's throwing a ball. And the rules prevent a runner from interfering with the actual throw.

The fielder in the OP is doing none of these things.

You ask, "Where does it state that if the fielder does not field the ball perfectly that the protection disappears?" It does not state that. But the rules do not protect a fielder who has already fielded a ball... unless they are throwing that ball.

The runner in the OP has not broken any of the 4 parts of the interference rule.

Runners on 2nd and 3rd. Infield ground ball fielded by F6, who is standing there checking R1 to hold her up from scoring and has not started any throwing motion anywhere. R2 runs into her, distracting / disrupting her enough that R1 scores, R2 is safe on 3rd, and BR is safe on 1st.

You got nothin'?

Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?

I don't do ASA. Please share.

Crash. Plan and simple. No intent needed. A runner cannot run into a fielder in possession of the ball. In this scenario this is only an out.

The fielder has the ball, and the runner remains upright and runs into her, this is an out for interference. All applicable rules apply to other runners as well.

What about this same play in NFHS? To me this is a more complex argument in the NFHS book than it is in ASA. What rule would apply to the NFHS game on the same situation?

Don't care, not the point of the question

It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.

While thank you for your opinion, now if anyone else who isn't going to be that guy, would like to discuss it, feel free.

Or you can start your own thread for NFHS scenario and ruling.

I'll stick with the rule (which apparently no one wants to read as requested) over a RS any day. If you want to live by the RS, you would be condoning collisions as noted in this scenario without penalty.

Coach: Blue, that runner just barreled over my player.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: But she had the ball.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: Rule 8.7.Q clearly states the runner cannot do that.
Umpire: Yep, but the RS says it is okay if the defender is not attempting to tag that runner, so all is good here, coach.

Yeah, I dare you to have that conversation :)