"Defensive Interference"
 

NFHS Game
R1 on 1B.
F1 throws a wild pitch, and R1 runs toward 2B.
F6 runs toward 2B and stands right next to the inside corner of 2B (the corner of the base that is closest to the pitcher's circle). Once F6 gets to this position, F6 does not move. F6 is not touching 2B, but F6 is standing upright, directly next to 2B, as described.
F2 is attempting to chase down and pick up the ball. No play is being made on R1 at 2B.
R1 is sprinting toward 2B and will continue to run toward 3B. R1 cannot round 2B quickly by making a tight turn (stepping on the inside corner of 2B and pushing off 2B to make a turn toward 3B) and continue directly toward 3B, because F6 is in the way, preventing R1 from making a quick, tight turn. (If R1 had attempted to make a tight turn at 2B, R1 would have contacted F6, who did not move after arriving there.)
Instead, R1 avoids running into F6 by continuing to run full speed and step on 2B, then continuing toward left field (but R1 does not leave the infield dirt) for the next few steps in making a big, wide, and longer turn, before R1 can straighten out and then eventually run directly toward 3B.
F2 throws the ball to F5 at 3B. As R1 approaches 3B F5 tags R1. FU calls R1 out.
OC requests time, and it is called by the Umpires.
OC states to FU that F6 impeded R1's progress because F6 did not have the ball and was in R1's path, and R1 had to avoid F6 by running around her.
FU and PU confer with each other.
Both Umpires tell OC that "It's a judgement call by them. (They) have to determine what the result of the play would have been had the interference had not happened. The F6 briefly interfered with R1 at 2B and R1 had to run around F6. F5 had the ball long before R1 arrived at 3B and F5 tagged R1 out. In (their) judgement, if the interference by F6 had not happened at 2B, and R1 had continued to run toward 3B as R1 did, R1 would have been out anyway, based on the actual play that happened. So it is (their) judgement that the result of the play was the same as if the interference had not happened. So there is no interference on F6 and R1 is out."

What do you think?

I think it is in a baseball game.
If in a softball game, the description says F6 obstructed; so after the tag of R1, the BU would call time and award third base to R1.
Umpires are either from some other sport, poor judges, or uninformed.
Not leaving the infield is irrelevant.

This was NFHS Softball. These are the words the USA Softball Umpires used in their response.

The description of R1's path is to communicate how wide a turn R1 had to make to avoid contact with F6 at 2B while running at full speed and continuing toward 3B.

The FED softball first say that the runner gets the bases they would have gotten if not obstructed:

If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base that would have ben reached had there not been an obstruction, a dead ball is called and the obstruction will be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, and there not been obstruction.

The only thing that can't happen if the runner is obstructed BETWEEN bases is that they be put out. The umpire needs to either grant them the next base or send them back to the previous one. That doesn't sound like what happened here. The runner was obstructed at second base.

OBS at a base is presumed to be going to the next.

The runner could be put out in between those bases if the runner commits an overriding violation.

OK, just "poor judges, or uninformed" :(

Welcome to the forum, Bulldog Blue :D

Yeah, so, nothing I said contradicts that.
Overriding?

The only thing that can't happen if the runner is obstructed BETWEEN bases is that they be put out. The umpire needs to either grant them the next base or send them back to the previous one.

Well, if a runner commits an act of interference (following OBS), she will be called out.

If the runner passes another runner (following OBS), she will be called out.

Even though obstructed, she must otherwise run the bases legally.

The point that I was trying to make is that both umpires did not apply the rule(s) properly, because they did not even know what OBS is, as they only used the word interference. No obstruction was ever called nor referred to. And their ruling/decision clearly showed that neither one of the pair knew how to recognize, nor apply the OBS rule. And these are both well-experienced USA Umpires working an NFHS game.

Perhaps not so much, huh?

USA & NFHS are probably 96% the same in terms of rules and 100% the same for mechanics.

Your point is now well understood, even with the questionable experience of the umpires involved.
As above, the rule and mechanics are the same.