MD90 FLT CREW LNDG ORD; EXITS RWY 27R ONTO RWY 22R CAUSING GAR DURING LAHSO OPS.

Narrative

DURING ROLLOUT ON RWY 27R ORD; I DECIDED TO USE THE DEP END OF RWY 22R TO MAKE MY HIGH SPD EXIT IN ORDER TO CLR THE RWY TO ALLOW PLENTY OF ROOM FOR TFC LNDG BEHIND US ON RWY 27R. LAHSO OPS WERE IN EFFECT FOR RWY 22R AND WE HEARD THAT RWY 22R TFC HAD BEEN 'CLRED TO LAND/HOLD SHORT OF RWY 27R' SO I DIDN'T THINK USING THE RWY 22R PAST THE 'HOLD SHORT' POINT WAS GOING TO BE A FACTOR. AS WE EXITED RWY 27R ONTO RWY 22R TOWARD THE TERMINAL; I NOTED TWR DIRECTED RWY 22R LNDG TFC TO 'GO AROUND.' I SUSPECTED THAT I MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FACTOR IN THAT DIRECTIVE AND CALLED ORD TWR BY LAND LINE TO INQUIRE. I SPOKE WITH ON-DUTY SUPVR WHO INFORMED ME THAT; ACCORDING TO THE CTLR ON DUTY; THAT DURING MY ROLLOUT ON RWY 27R; JUST PRIOR TO MY EXIT ON RWY 22R; THE CTLING CTLR ASKED US TO EXIT ON TXWY E PAST THE RWY 27R/22R INTXN. I HADN'T HEARD THAT CALL AND MY FO TOLD ME HE HEARD OUR CALL SIGN ONLY AS WE WERE APCHING THE INTXN TO WHICH HE RESPONDED WITH A 'YES SIR?' BUT THERE WAS NO FURTHER DIRECTIVE TO US UNTIL WE WERE SAFELY STOPPED ON THE DEP END OF RWY 22R. I AM UNCLR AS TO THE TIMING OF THE FO'S INQUIRY AND DON'T KNOW IF OUR XMISSION 'STEPPED ON' THE REMAINDER OF THE CTLR'S DIRECTIVE. SUPVR TOLD ME THAT THE CTLR DID NOT HEAR AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM US; SO THERE WAS 'NO VIOLATION' ON OUR PART. I RESEARCHED MY LAHSO REFS AND CANNOT FIND GUIDANCE ON MY OBLIGATIONS WHILE XING OR UTILIZING RWY PAST A LAHSO POINT; BUT WILL FIND OUT. I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CONCERNED WITH RWY 22R LNDG TFC VERSUS TFC BEHIND US ON RWY 27R.