Or you can just call time when all obvious play is complete. The "live ball game" is a myth.

This is something that occurs thousands of times a day all over the country and it works fine, does not deny any team any opportunities and helps the game move along at a decent pace.

But you all know where I stand :)

True Mike, but if you think about this happening at game speed, why would one be calling time here?

You see your runner stop at 1B after being OBS right there. End of story.

You see the ball back in the circle, no subsequent play. End of story.

Your hustling back to your position, and BANG, there goes the runner!

Im not saying the timeout is wrong, Im saying that in the normal no-action, between-play situation, we wouldn't be doing it just to get back to our position.

It's why we tell 'em to get it in the circle.

Have never suggested a "time" call be instantaneous. As you noted in your description, all play must have been over since it was "end of story". Just kill the ball and hustle back into position. Since you have called time, if a runner tries to advance, you just tell her to get back on the appropriate base and move on.

And because the ball is dead, both umpires can hustle to their position simultaneously instead of one watching the runner while the other moves.

Gotcha Mike. An easy way to avoid having to make and defend the most unusual ruling in the book. I like it. :)

In discussions with a multitude of colleagues, I have found not 1 who would ever make that call (protect the runner and bring her back to 1B), including NCAA officials.

Guarantee I'd have no UIC backing me up in the case of a protest.

Cannot believe I missed this exception in the rulebook. Likely renders much of this discussion moot.

NCAA 9.5.7 An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed unless one of the following occurs.

(all the other previously discussed exceptions are listed, then)

9.5.7.8 The umpire determines the runner is clearly beaten by the throw.

Can someone please tell me how I'd reconcile this exception to an OC? A runner who is obstructed rounding the base could very likely be put out by a mile at the next bag. How can the rule itself even exist with this exception in place?

Please tell me I'm missing something blatantly apparent here...

Actually, I have always done exactly that. If your arm goes up, it is quite likely the coach and other players saw it and are going to expect an explanation. Most likely because their belief that a runner should always be advanced.

Not only does it provide an explanation for the signal, but makes everyone aware you were on top of the play, have the rules knowledge to recognize the violation, make the appropriate award and you are willing to make such a call. I only added that last part because I have constantly been told by folks that umpires don't make OBS calls.

This portion of the rule has been explained to me like this:

You have to take this statement: "The umpire determines the runner is clearly beaten by the throw." in conjunction with the part of the rule that states that "blocking a base is obstruction"

If the fielder is blocking a base, but the runner is "clearly beaten by the throw", then there is no obstruction.

This is ambiguous. No make the out call or not make the protect call ?

Are you saying that overrides the umpire judgement of which base the runner would have reached w/o OBS?

Even though I don't need NCAA rulings.

No, I am saying that, after she rounds first base and is obstructed, and returns to first base and stands there, if she takes off for second base and is put out by a large margin, she is no longer protected by virtue of this additional exception.
Am I not reading this correctly?

I believe this forum covers high-level rules interpretations… I can honestly say that I don’t know of a single umpire, USA, NCAA, pony, that 1. knows this exception (being on the base and a subsequent play on another runner) and 2. would enforce it once they did learn of it.
I’ve had discussions with colleagues about this exact exception, and have been told in no uncertain terms “there is no way I would reinstate the obstruction protection once she stops at 1b and then takes off again. No way.”
I feel as though I am the only umpire , besides everyone on this forum, that knows this rule.

They aren't reinstating anything, it never went away. And if they refuse to apply the rule as it is written, they are just begging for a protest they are going to lose.

While looking up something on another matter in the NFHS book, I came across an exception in regards to the LBR. I remembered this discussion, re-read it, and didn't see this particular action mentioned.

It doesn't relate to the OBS portion of the discussion.

8.7 Exception includes a statement that:

"a fake throw is considered a play."

Just wanted to remember to add it here.