My recollection of the NCAA new ruling on obstruction about a fielder being in the basepath without the ball is where that language came from. The new rule makes it automatically obstruction for a defensive player to be in front of a base/plate without possession of the ball with a caveat of unless the runner would have clearly been out of something to that effect.

And last year they made it less subjective by changing "about to receive" to "in possession of" the ball (approximate quotes).

Now they go and add a grey area back to the rule.

Was the ball in the possession of F5 at 3B at the time of contact? If so, R2 is already retired. A retired runner cannot be obstructed.

Did R2 impede or hinder F6's attempt at making the play/throw? If so, R2 is out for INT.

Was R2 clearly beaten to the base by the ball? If so, R2 is out, as a runner clearly beaten by the ball is not protected if they will clearly be out with or without OBS (NCAA 9.5.7.8).

If none of the above apply, call OBS. R2 will be awarded 3B, as she is forced to 3B by the BR and R1.

Or call nothing:
12.13.3 Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive
player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred.
Note: The first fielder fielding a batted ball is protected from obstruction, but
thereafter, if both the fielder and the runner are acting appropriately, neither player
shall be penalized for the incidental contact.

The "clearly beaten" exception is probably what the partner was referring to, when saying if the runner is dead-to-rights out, we don't call OBS in NCAA.

NCAA Softball 2016-2017 Book

1.36 Obstruction
The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter’s
attempt to make contact with a pitch or that impedes the progress of a runner
who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball,
is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of catching a thrown ball. The act may
be intentional or unintentional and applies to live-ball action only.

9.4.3 An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases
where she was obstructed unless one of the following occurs:
9.4.3.1 The obstructed runner, after being obstructed, safely obtains the
base she would have been awarded, in the umpire’s judgment, had
there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different
runner. The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the
base.

9.5.2 Fielder Obstruction.
9.5.2.1 A fielder who is not in possession of the ball, not in the act of
fielding a batted ball or not in the act of catching a thrown or pitched
ball, shall not impede the runner.

Correct and the point of that case play was to demonstrate the actual purpose of the obstruction rule which is to nullify the effect of the obstruction.

IMO, the "cannot be put out between the two bases" where obstruction occurs is there to eliminate the many arguments over the actual cause and effect. It also restricts some very common sense rulings such as in the offered play here.

^^^^This!

As I was reading through the discussion, I was wondering when someone would bring up the "clearly beaten" exception to the between-base protection in NCAA play. Yes, this is a case where the runner has no protection despite being obstructed because she was clearly beaten in the play.

As for other rule sets, the protection would allow the runner to be awarded third base here. No different than other scenarios where a runner is obstructed between bases where she's easily retired, such as when R1 is tripped by F3 as she's heading to second on a grounder to F4, and F4 throws to F6 at second for an easy force out. The fact that the runner wouldn't have made it safely if there was no obstruction has no bearing on the play (that's why I've never been a big fan of the between-base protection in NFHS and USA).

So what should F6 have done to avoid an obstruction call here under those other rule sets? Turn and tag the oncoming runner instead of tossing it to F5 for the force.

Richard, here's the actual case play you are referring to. It leaves a lot to be desired.

Note there is nothing in the ruling that states R1 must be awarded third base because she cannot be put out between two bases where she was obstructed. It just says R1 and the other runners are awarded the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. Well, if there was no obstruction, the likelihood R1 would have reached third is practically nil.

So why would NFHS muddy the waters here with such a generalized statement for this particular case play? They kind of leave it unsaid that the runner should be protected between the two bases, and even if she wouldn't have reached third base without the obstruction, she is still awarded the base. Seems rather vague whether or not the end result of this play would be bases loaded, one out, and a new F6 having to come in.

If you assume her chance was nil; then the ruling has to be a between the bases protection.

I don't disagree. And that's exactly what the ruling should have said, not make it vague by saying she's awarded the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction. If there had been no obstruction, she wouldn't have reached any base.