Now that

[greymule]

so why would anyone think to call it differently.

Because, with the removal of the "about to receive" clause, the fielder's protection of the ball being between the fielder and the runner has been eliminated. If F2 is juggling the ball and a runner unintentionally crashes into him, that runner is not out by the new rule. Last year, he was out.

Unless we assume that all crashes are intentional, but if they were, then we wouldn't need any language about the fielder in possession of the ball—all crashes would be outs for USC. POE #13 E and F give examples of collisions that we are not to call crashes. These sections do not define "crash" by degree or level of contact. The defining criteria have nothing to do with USC, and allow the possibility of a severe, non-USC crash that is simply incidental contact.

In fact, what is the runner supposed to do in this situation?: he's 20 feet from home running at full steam, and the throw bounces off F2 and rolls a few feet up the 3B line. As F2 is reaching down for the ball and the runner is now five feet away, the runner should:

a. Keep going into the catcher, who (now) has no protection by rule.
b. Slow down but get an obstruction call by running into the catcher without "crashing" him.
c. Try to avoid contact and risk having F2 pick up the ball and tag him out.
d. Stop and complain to the ump that F2 is in his way without the ball.

As for any connection with the USC out call that arose last year, I haven't found any in the 2004 book yet (but I just got it last night).