Situation 1
R1 awarded 3B and BR awarded 2B with the out nullified since all action resulted from obstruction on R1. Of course, this assumes you judge R1 was making a legitimate attempt to advance to 3rd, and not merely bluff it as he rounded 2nd base.
Situation 2
Your decision in protecting BR to 2nd is based not on whether you felt he would have made it there safely, but rather on whether you judged he was making a legitimate attempt to advance to 2nd at the time he was obstructed.
Evans must have read your mind when he put this in JEA:
Play: The B-R rounds 1st on a base hit to right field. The 1st baseman is not paying attention and obstructs the B-R as he rounds 1st. In the umpires judgment, the B-R was going to try for 2nd . The throw to second is perfect and, most likely, the B-R would have been put out.
Ruling: Regardless of the B-R's chances to reach 2nd safely, the defensive team is obligated to allow unimpeded progress on the base path. In this case, the 1st baseman is guilty of type 7.06(a) Obstruction. The B-R is awarded 2nd (at least one base)...the penalty provided under 7.06(a).
So, to answer your question about allowing this BR to be thrown out at the next base.............
If I judged BR was obstructed after rounding 1B
but was not making a legitimate attempt to advance, perhaps making a wide turn bluff to draw a throw, I would not protect him to 2B. Other occurences might happen:
- The runner may hear you call "obstruction" and advance thinking he's protected yet if he draws an errant throw he could go beyond 2nd, or
- He could attempt return to 1st and be caught in a rundown resulting in his dive attempt into 2nd base for an out. In that case, I'd enforce the type B obstruction and return him to first---the base I would have protected him back to as a result of the obstruction.
Just my opinion,
Freix