I got clarification on the AR at our conference clinic today. They are being drop dead literal. The runner that leaves a base before a fly ball is caught gets no protection if she is obstructed before tagging up. Direction of the runner does not matter.

Engage sh**storm...but, the letter of the rule book will back up this call on the likely protest.

Adjusting your situation:

R1 is on 1B. A fly ball is hit to the outfield, and R1 leaves 1B before the ball is caught. R1 realizes she has left early and returns towards 1B. R1 is obstructed by F4 en route to 1B. The defense completes a live-ball appeal by throwing to F3 before R1 reaches 1B.

NCAA: R1 is out, no matter the judgment???

Lordy, Lordy...

I have also had this ruling confirmed in a conference meeting. It was explained to me(and the rest of the group) that a runner who has left early is not to be protected by rule.

On the other hand, like so many things that we end up with 5 pages of comments about, how often do we really think this is going to happen during the season.

By rule and A.R (9.4.3.2), the runner is protected from obstruction regardless of the runner's direction and the umpire's judgment is taken into consideration.

Yes, this A.R. contradicts 9.4.3.5. Remember, the OP specifically addresses the exception to the OBS rule that states an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred.

It could become a very common play. Think about how many times R1 goes almost to second on a fly ball to left. It's a common tactic in case F7 drops or misplays the ball. Now, NCAA is practically telling F4 that she can tackle R1 on her way back to first.

It's a bad ruling.

Every single time for about 2 games, then the AR will be corrected. If a runner leaving early means that the defense can actively prevent them from returning, then going halfway on a flyball is a thing of the past.
Did nobody ask about this at your conference meeting?

This is a point I had not previously considered. That is quite an impact on the nature of the game.

No, that is not a scenario where this ruling would apply. Suggest you reread original as this pertains ONLY to the protection afforded an obstructed runner between the two bases where obstructed when another violation (on that runner) occurs.

The problem is (perhaps) not the intent of the ruling, but the wording of the ruling.

We all know that a runner is not protected no matter what if she commits a violation, but we all would protect the runner if ITUJ the obstruction prevented the runner who was attempting to return from reaching the base (e.g. obstructed during her return attempt.)

Yet, it is being reported that the NCAA clinics are teaching that the direction of the runner does not matter.

I will not attempt to address commentary at NCAA Clinics; the one I attended had multiple misinterpretations. Nothing changes the existing rules if it doesn't come from the new Rules Interpreter, VVK. Our SUP and current rules committee member representing umpires stumbled multiple times.

From another board:

Reply from me:

Well stated. I have been waiting to see who would recognize the full effect of this ruling. The point is, as I have attempted to point out before, is that there are TWO inclusive (not EXCLUSIVE) forms of protection when obstruction occurs. #1 The obstructed runner cannot be out between the two bases where the obstruction(s) occur (with noted exclusions), AND #2 the runner cannot be out if she doesn't reach the base the umpire judges she would have reached if not obstructed (the only exceptions on this form is failing to touch a base in proper order or committing an act of interference). BOTH forms must be provided, even if one is no longer applicable.

You may note that no set of standard softball rules specify protecting only runners advancing in the second form (my order above); they say "reach the base". If the umpire judges the only reason a runner was unable to reach 2nd when returning after leaving early, then the runner is awarded second; even though not protected by form #1 due to the exception.

Not sure if it still exists, but ASA used to have a casebook play stating that being impeded or hindered while heading AWAY from a base left early was not obstruction for either form; HP reasoned that the defense was actually helping the runner from getting farther from the necessary return. But he was clear in conversation that hindering the return could be obstruction if judged it kept the runner from returning safely.

Quoted from the BucksCo quote above:

"If, in the umpire's judgement, she would not have made it back in time anyway (even had there been no obstruction), she will be called out.
However, if in the umpires judgement, the obstruction caused her to not return in time, she will not be called out."

Isn't that saying just that OBS is remedied by the umpire awarding the base the runner would have reached without the OBS?
IOW, the historic basic rule?

Pretty much what has been stated by a few of us in different manner. IMO, people are reading an interpretation of a specific exception to a specificrule as it applies to a specific scenario which really hasn't changed how most umpires have percieved it to be for quite a while.

IOW, it is really nothing more than a clarification of an exception to the "between two bases" rule involving an obstructed runner.

If this is truly the ruling, and coaches get wind, then ANY time R1 leaves first on a routine fly ball, going halfway, like they are supposed to, coaches should coach my 2nd baseman to go give them a bear hug until the ball can come back in... at least until they fix this ruling.

And the coach may get really pissed if the umpire ejects F4.