I thought this one was easy...
 

I'll ask this in the form of a test question; USA rules please.

BR hits an obvious double to left center. F3 is watching the ball roll and steps into BR knocking her down onto first. The umpire calls obstruction and judges that absent the obstruction the runner would have reached 2nd base.
he ball is relayed into second and then to the pitcher. Seeing the ball already in the infield by the time she gets up, the BR stays on first.

The umpire calls time and awards BR 2nd base. Is the ruling correct?

A) No, the umpire should not make an award because the obstructed runner was not put out and no award is made unless an obstructed runner is put out.
B) No, the umpire should not award 2nd base because the runner made no attempt at 2nd.
C) Yes, the umpire should always award one base on obstruction.
D) Yes, the umpire should award the base that would have been reached absent the obstruction at the end of playing action (or sooner if an obstructed runner is put out).

I had a very high confidence answer to this question in my mind and went to the new-association-where-I-just-moved-to training meeting and got a very different answer from the local powers that be. So I went to the rule book and it wasn't nearly as conclusive as I thought it would be. (NFHS is much clearer with a case play). So I'm putting the question to you and asking not just for an answer but for a citation to go with it.

“D” is the textbook answer in virtually all sanctions. Can’t imagine what any “powers-that-be” would consider more appropriate.

Without knowing anything about your new association, the level of who said what, or why they decided that; it is really hard to evaluate (yuk, that reads like HTBT ;))

Which wrong answer did they say? :confused:

USA rules cover this quite clearly.

The answer is the OBS is awarded the base which, in the umpire's judgment, would have been reached safely had there been no obstruction.

I can imagine "powers-that-be" picking any one of those other answers. In fact, in some cases I don't even have to imagine. I've had supposedly knowledgeable officials/trainers claim outrageously erroneous rule interps or mechanics.

One I can recall easily is that when giving the signal for OBS, the official must hold the signal even when following the obstructed runner around the bases.

So unless some lurker wants to support the other position everyone is with me on D here, yes?

The clinician was arguing for A. Support from others in the room was that the coach should know to send her and the rules only called for making the ball dead if an obstructed runner is put out. Not trying to defend the interpretation but 8-5-B calls for a delayed dead ball. 8-5-B-1&2 call for the ball to become dead. 8-5-B-3 indicates that the ball will remain alive. 8-5-B-4 doesn't say anything about the status of the ball. And it appears this is where you can get to answer A.

If I understand who was there correctly, the State Commissioner, State UIC, and all but one of the deputy UICs were there running the clinic. The clinician was one of the latter.
8-5-B-4 Effect 1 has always seemed pretty clear to me but insofar as it wasn't convincing to these folks, is there a case play or rule clarification or something that makes it even clearer?

Anyone who tells you anything other than D is someone which you should avoid at all costs. These people are all about themselves not the games or rules. Or they are just outright stupid.

^^^ This.

I learned to umpire in an environment where A was deemed to be the right call. I have made this call before on more than one occasion.

It is not the right call under any code.