And since they won, it won't be sour grapes for me to put in my 2 cents about the interference call and the rule generally, as an academic point.
Before we do anything else, does anyone disagree that the rule needs to be changed with respect to the penalty assessed? Let's say you call Turner out. Why does Yan Gomes have to return to first base? OK, so he doesn't get to stay at third, but no one was making any play on him at 2nd. Sans interference, he would've been at 2nd. He should keep that. The rule has always said that he has to be sent back, so the rule was properly applied, I know, but to paraphrase Mr. Macawber, the rule is a ass. If nothing else, change this.
As to the application of the rule, I don't know how Davey Martinez lasted as long as he did before he totally lost it. Just a horrible, horrible call.
Most such interference calls happen on bunts or dribblers that stay right around home plate. Why? Because that's when the runner gets into the throwing lane the fielder has to use. In this case, the ball Turner hit bounced about 45 feet up the third base line. Peacock had a clear throwing lane to the base. He threw into the runner, and in fact threw a tailing sinker to boot. Heck, I think Turner had the play beat, and the most he got out of his contact with Gurriel was the extra base when the ball got away. But saving Peacock from his own horrible throw is not what the rule is for, so applying it to this play was just wrong, wrong, wrong.
The rule requires that Turner BOTH (a) interfere and (b) be outside the runner's lane. The runner's lane is like the batter's box, in the sense that it's a safe harbor space. If a batter is hit by a batted ball that's in fair territory, he's out -- unless he's still in the batter's box. Part of the batter's box is in fair territory, mind you. But if he's in the batter's box, he's not out. The rule says that even a ball in fair territory is a dead ball and treated as if it were foul.
Similarly, if the runner is in the runner's lane, he cannot be deemed guilty of interference even if the ball hits him. (Unless he pulls an A-Rod and swats at it or some such.) The runner's lane is privileged space.
But a runner not in the lane is not out just because a ball hits him. He still has to be deemed to have interfered. This is where the umpires screwed up. Turner was not in the runner's lane, so he's not in the safe space. But he also didn't interfere. The mere act of running slightly outside the lane is not interference. Peacock had a clean throwing lane and Peacock threw wildly. That wasn't because of anything Turner did. Turner didn't alter his path, he didn't raise his arms, nothing. He just ran to the base. I saw no act of interference.
Think of the very common play where the SS has his throw sail and the 1B comes off the bag for the grab-and-swipe tag attempt. On most of those plays the batter-runner is outside the runner's lane, in fair territory. But if the 1B has the ball come out of his glove, is the batter-runner called out? NEVER. Well, the Peacock-Turner play is just like that play.
Maybe the rule could be revised to make this, the standard understanding and application, more clear. But to my mind, the problem is not the rule language.
The problem is, we had a World Series that's supposed to have the best of the best on the field, and MLB put umpires out there who embarrassed themselves all 7 games. The only saving grace is that, as best I could tell, it didn't decide any one game, nor the outcome of the Series.
. 
