This is exactly what I was going to post. Here's the point of contact:
The runner is squarely on the first base bag. Where ELSE is he supposed to be? The double first base bag makes a world of sense. On a grounder, the runner runs to, and touches, the foul half of the bag (which would be painted orange or whatever, to distinguish it from the fair white portion). On a hit to the OF, the runner can run to the fair white portion as he rounds first. This way on a grounder, he can (must) run in the foul running lane, which allows him a clean run through the foul orange part of the first base bag. It's a completely simple, stress-free solution that has literally no drawbacks that I can think of.
I need to stop, but I like rules and rules questions. I wish this play had happened to the Astros, because I really think that people would at least be more receptive to understanding the rule. I really think the laundry -- and in the media people's desire to see a game 7 -- is affecting the outrage factor.
The rule deals with exactly what you're asking. (Actually, the comment does.) It recognizes that the runner needs eventually to go out of the lane to touch the bag. So, it deals with that by saying he can take his last step into fair territory, out of the lane,
so long as he does so from the lane. In the picture posted above, this moment would
not have been interference if Turner had run where he was supposed to run and then ended up in this position
from the runner's lane.
The bottom line here is that Turner wanted to beat out a ball that he knew was going to be a close play, so he didn't want the extra split second it would have taken him to run the less direct route that the rule requires. 99 percent of the time that will be the right decision -- the benefit of trying to beat out the throw is greater than the liability of potentially being in a position where you can be called for interference. If the throw is a better throw, he's safe.
Does the rule penalize bad throws sometimes? Yep.
The A-Rod answer to that "problem" (which I would call a non-problem) is that umps should use "common sense." Can you fucking imagine? You're on your fourth week at Hunter Wedlestedt's camp. Your head is full of 80 year well worn advice on positioning and mechanics, and you've had to learn 50 rules that will come into play once or twice in your lifetime and you have to get right in real time with very talented players playing the position. And then when you're about to leave your instructor says, "oh, and use common sense too." What the fuck does that mean? Call the rules.
I know we hate the racist Guriel and the domestic violence enabling Astros and that we like our Red Sox to have the greater claim to century dominance, and whatever else are the reasons we root for the Nationals in this series. But Turner made a choice and was out. It would have been an injustice for the Nats to have second and third in this situation. Peacock could have made a better throw, but first basemen field not perfect throws cleanly all the time.
The dead ball result is harsh. A good outcome on this play would be man on second one out. But the rules are pretty consistent about runner placement after dead balls.