The problems stems from the fact that rules are changed, then interpretations come out, and finally (sometimes years later) all the text in the various parts of the rule and case books and test questions catch up.
There is no question in my mind that the position of the NFHS is that obstruction will be called when an errant throw pulls a defender into the path of a runner and neither had an opportunity to avoid the contact. A month ago I spoke with a member of the NFHS SB rules committee and he not only affirmed this point, but also provided some of the background from a rather animated discussion group at Indy last summer. Then I received a copy of an email between Emily Alexander and Mary Stuckhoff on this same subject. Emily is also a member of the committee; Mary is the editor and seems to be the chief interpreter. The essence of that is now posted on cactus umpires. All of this is discussed on a lengthy post on the NFHS SB board here:
http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...;f=13;t=000223
Now the problem. My assumption is that the NFHS has taken this position as a result of the ASA interpretation, as ASA made this change a year earlier. However, now ASA is throwing confusing signals. At a recent NUS Kevin Ryan, in his class presentation, called this a train wreck. When I talked to him between sessions and suggest that this should be obstruction, he emphatically stated NO! That was not why the rule was changed (deleting about to receive).
So now I dont know where we are going. Maybe NCAA will change next year and well get a third version. (Though it doesnt look like NCAA wants to make this change.)
Despite the casebook or test questions, the NFHS position is clear. No to train wrecks. Yes to obstruction.
WMB