SS Gave Up Interference Rule?

[MTR]

Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Looping line drive to F6 - one of those that at first look like a hard hit line drive, but really just have a lot of spin holding it up. F6 takes what amounts to a small drop-step (doesn't take multiple steps or really cover any ground other that the small step back with one foot) and then immediately judges the ball is not hit hard and that she should move back to play the arcing ball. R2 runs on contact and passes just in front of F6 causing an obvious hesitation/adjustment as ball hits glove but is dropped. Bases now loaded 0 outs. Umpire said that with the slight step backwards F6 gave up the right to "protection" by the interference rule. We argued the step backwards was just her way of judging/fielding that particular ball and that the affect of R2 was obvious. I did some quick research but couldn't find anything like "It is not interference when..." but I could have missed something. Comments? The frustrating part is that the play had double play and maybe triple play written all over it as R1 ran on contact too and both R2 and R1 would have been sitting ducks as far off the bases they would have been with a clean catch.

While it is correct that running in front of a fielder itself, the fact that the runner hindered the fielder could indeed be ruled as interference. The player attempting to field an untouched batted ball own the field and the right of way. At no point in time is that player required, nor should s/he be expected to cede that right of way to a runner. Nor should that fielder be expected to place him/herself in jeopardy of a collision for the sake of drawing a call.

It can be difficult to separate a fielder making a decision to try another angle or being forced to check up to avoid getting run over. However, if the umpire judges the latter, it could be an INT call. Any umpire who tells you there must be contact, either doesn't know the rules or has chosen to ignore them at the peril of the player's wellbeing