OBS case(s)
 

R1 on 1st, fly ball to OF, caught. R1 was running, then was obstructed while returning on the catch. Throw from OF gets through IF, not dead, and R1 tries again to advance. Is R1 protected from out between 1st and 2nd if:

a) R1 did not reach 1st on the original return, or

b) R1 did reach 1st on the original return

ASA ?
NFHS ?
any ?

Since you mentioned "any", I'm going ASA and NCAA.

My take is, it's irrelevant that the ball got through. If she's obstructed while returning to tag a base left too early, the "automatic" protection between the bases is rescinded.
If she'd have been out had there been no OBS, she's out.
If the OBS caused the out, it caused the out. Award the runner. (not "caused", but you know what I mean)

Semi -hijack:
What's the mechanic?
Runner leaves early, obstructed returning. DDB signal, even if she's not (necessarily) protected back to the base?

Or do you consider F2's backing up the play, then throwing to 1B or 2B, a secondary play that eliminates the OBS call altogether?

ASA covers this well in RS #36. The obstructed runner would be called out on the completed live-ball appeal for leaving the base before the fly ball was touched, if in the umpire's judgment the runner would not have been safe absent the obstruction.

If the runner reaches the base they would have been awarded (returned to 1B in this case), the obstruction is cancelled and the runner may be put out anywhere on the base paths if they advance.

The mechanic IMHO would be to signal the DDB per ASA 8-5-B, then make the call based on what happens after the OBS. But if a snowball fight breaks out, don't run around out there with your left arm out. Signal and vocalize, hold, and move on.

In NCAA, my understanding is that the runner who needs to tag up is not protected between the two bases by rule if advancing, per 9.4.3.5 and its Approved Ruling. However, 9.4.3.2 indicates that a runner obstructed while returning can be protected if the "obstruction causes the out"/would have reached safely absent the OBS. There was another thread on the board earlier this year on that topic.

In NFHS, the rule matches my NCAA interp, i.e, runner not protected when advancing; is protected if she is returning, per 8.4.3b.a(2). <--- Not a typo, that's actually how the sections are labeled, at least in my 2015 book.

To lose protection of being called out between the bases, a runner has to reach the base they would have reached AND there then has to be a play on a different runner.

A runner who is obstructed with no chance of getting back to first is still out for leaving early. But if she makes it back to first and then steps off again and there has been no subsequent play, she cannot be tagged out.

Am I missing something here?

Yes with the exception of an appeal for the base left too soon Yes

OK, another case:
Runners on 1st and 2nd, base hit to LF.
R1 going to 3rd, making wide turn but collides with F5 barely before reaching 3rd. OBS called.
R1 continues toward home, LF throws to catcher, R1 tagged out 15 – 20 feet before home.

Is there any reason, with regard to the OBS, to nullify the out?
For example, R1’s path looked like an attempt to score and the OBS impeded.

As written, the runner was only protected between 2nd and 3rd, so out at home would be the call.

Remember, at the time of OBS you judge what base the runner would have achieved. If that judgement was that the runner would have scored without the OBS, then award home. But I do not see that in this sitch.

If you had written that OBS occurred at 3B, then there is the argument that the runner was also protected between 3B and HP, in which case the runner would be returned to 3B.

Two possibilities. One if he would have scored absent the obstruction. HTBT, but I'm guessing you're implying no. Second, if a runner is bumped before a base and as a result falls or stumbles past the base, then HTBT, but I'm likely determining that they were obstructed both before and after the base and have them protected on both sides of the bag.
The rulebook isn't super clear on the latter but we've had discussions to this effect here before. It basically comes down to where the obstruction occurred in your judgment and in my mind I tend to judge that it occurred over the space the runner was actively hindered.
Note, you need this interpretation if you have this situation: Runner going to first with no shot at second trips over the inattentive F3 and is now lying between 1st and 2nd where she is tagged.

I'm solidly in that camp. Obstruction, the fact that a runner is hinder or otherwise impeded, should not be considered as existing at exactly and only one spot where it began; it should be considered in its' totality, and for the entire area it results in the runner being impeded. I hardly believe that in the cited post. the runner was hindered just that instant ("barely before reaching third", and was fully recovered and no longer hindered one step later past third.

I often use driving analogies; right of way, etc. This, to me, is like the traffic on my GPS; it barely helps to tell me there is an incident 8.3 miles ahead if they don't also tell me there is already a 2.1 mile back up!! Well, more like the inverse, I suspect; you have to consider the affect and length of space necessary to regain balance and full speed as part of the initial obstruction if the goal (as stated) is to fully negate the effect of the obstruction.

On the field, I'm considering what I read here from CecilOne as obstructed both before and after; the judgement of home may not happen, but I'm not having an out on this, either. To me, any other more literal ruling simply isn't fair to the aggrieved party, and ultimately rewards the defense for obstructing.

Question that, IMO, is pertinent:

When making the "wide turn", did this action cause the runner to adjust the path and step toward F5 (who may have believed s/he was clear of the runner's established path) to initiate the contact?

The only question I have is how big was the collision. Was she bumped off her stride then thrown out by 15-20 feet?. I have an out as she exceeded her protection. If she was knocked to the ground I can justify the 15-20 feet was listed as a result of going to the ground and I will award home plate.

Possibly. Why?
Do you say the F5 thinking changes the call & result?

If the runner is attempting to make contact/draw an OBS call, s/he is no longer attempting to advance to the next base hence cannot be impeded in that effort

I would agree with that. I am not going to reward an offensive player if they are the one going out of their way to make contact and draw an obstruction call. I will add this however, for me to not call the obstruction it had better be a very clear move to initiate the contact.