[greymule]

a) when an obstructed runner, after the obstruction, safely obtains the base they would have been awarded, in the umpireÂ’s judgment, had there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected between the bases where they were obstructed and may be put out,

Anyone care to make book on how long it will take to delete the phrase "and there is a subsequent play on a different runner" from this rule?
__________

According to NJ UIC Bob Mauger, whom I saw again tonight, the clause is not operative and will be deleted for next year's rule book. As long as the obstructed runner makes it safely to the base she would have reached, she can be put out between the bases where she was obstructed. There is no need for an intervening or subsequent play on a different runner.

Bob is sending me an official interpretation.

Therefore: A runner is caught in a rundown between 3B and home and is obstructed going back to 3B but makes it back safely. The ball gets away and the runner tries for home but is thrown out.

Now that runner is out. His protection disappeared after he touched 3B. Before this year, he could not have been put out between 3B and home and would have been sent back to 3B.