Here is my thought that I apply with regards to obstruction in several of these scenarios:

The defense violated by obstructing. Why do umpires look for ways to give the defense a break and ending a runner's protection to benefit the defense?

Although it is not specifically stated in the rules...the benefit of the doubt with obstruction should go to the offensive player.

FWIW, NCAA has the exact same verbiage in spelling out the exception, followed by this sentence:
The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the base.

There is a whole laundry list of rules NCAA is off on their own on.

The only possible action would be the pitcher leaving the circle or making a play on a runner standing on a base, both non-sensible, causes more problems than viable action and is a simple waste of time and energy. Remember how it was prior to a dead ball appeal? Remember how crazy it could get, even in the SP game? Wasn't the LBR instituted to eliminate all the bullshit and monkey business?

The players are there to play the game, not play games.

But isn’t that just a follow-on to the premise that a play was made on another runner? In other words, once a subsequent play is made on another runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected should she leave her base?

I don’t read that statement as applying all the time. If it did, it would be a separate and distinct exception under 9.4.3.

Thats the way I read it also. Its a follow up to the statement about there being a subsequent play on a different runner. If those requirements are met, then the runner is no longer protected if they leave the base.

It is not "game playing" when an aggressive base running team watches the other team (in this case, the pitcher) for opportunities to advance. These opportunities present themselves more often than one might think; it is just that most teams ignore them rather than try to take advantage.

It is not the purpose of the rules to protect players from having their mistakes taken advantage of, nor is it the purpose of the rules to declare the ball dead in order to give umpires a time to relax.

Just to add, this happened to me in a D1 game a couple of years ago, and I was told by my partners that I blew the call. R1 at first, and the batter hits a single up the middle. R1 tries to go corner to corner, and F8's throw to F5 is just off-line toward the home plate side of third base. F5 dives for the ball as R1 slides headfirst into third. She sees the ball get past F5 toward the dugout, so she pops up and starts heading for home, whereupon she trips over F5 who is still on the ground in the base path. Out comes my arm.

R1 gets up, sees that F1 had backed up the throw, and heads back to third base. IMJ, R1 would have never made it home, so if she had tried and got tagged out easily, I would've told my PU partner that she should return to third. But then the third base coach (and team's head coach) tells his runner, "Go home; that was obstruction!" So she takes off for home at a slow jog. F1, still with the ball, runs over and tags R1, and I ruled her out.

Problem was, I had a senior moment, and I explained to the coach that the reason I called her out was because F1's play on her was a subsequent play (I plumb forgot that the subsequent play rule was specifically for another runner, not the obstructed runner). He rightfully argued that his runner was protected between third and home, and I said her protection went away when she allowed a subsequent play to be made on her.

Both my partners during our post-game stated that she still had her between-base protection. Neither of them said that the runner lost that protection when she made it safely back to third and then came off that base.

I'm trying to remember if I was one of your partners in that game, or if we just discussed this play later (I think it was the latter); but I agree with your partners. It isn't that she left the base after returning safely, there was no play on anyone else in the interim to apply that "subsequent play" exception.

Wow. Im reading it real slowly, but now I think I need it fed to me like a child.

1. No one on except the obstructed runner. She touches the base she was protected to, then comes off. Still protected to that base.
2. 2 runners on. Obstructed runner touches base she was protected to. NO subsequent play on other runner. OBS runner comes off. Still protected.
3. 2 runners on. Obstructed runner touches base she was protected to. Subsequent play on other runner. OBS runner comes off. No longer protected.

Correct or no?

Correct

1 & 2, only if she is between the bases where she was obstructed.

And the additional sentence in the NCAA exception (which I posted earlier) only serves to clarify the exception, not to make it differ from the other groups.

I think you and I worked a series shortly after this happened, and we discussed it. I do remember you telling me I was a dumbsh!t or something similar...:D

OK, that is the rule. BUT, WHY does the protection cease with a play on another runner?

Just for clarity, only if the runner attains the "protected to" base?