obstruction
 

Runner on 2nd. Batter-runner rounds 1st base and is obstructed returning to 1st. (A) BR touches 1st.(B) BR does not touch 1st. At the same time the throw to cutoff is overthrown. Catcher picks up ball and fires to third attempting to pick off R2 rounding 3rd. R2 is safe, F5 throws to second for an out on the BR attempting to advance to 2nd. NCAA ruling for (A) and (B)

The touch or no touch of the base is irrelevant. 9.4.2.3 states that a fielder shall not obstruct a runner rounding or returning to a base. The effect states, in essence, the offender shall be warned, the coach notified, and each subsequent violation shall result in a base award to the OBS runner.

skahtboi, so the batter-runner is out at second then? I came up with this situation off of A.R. 9.3.7 and added a few other elements.

1) Doesn't this end up with the BR not being put out between 1st & 2nd, so if ITUJ would have made 2nd, the runner is awarded 2nd.
2) Isn't the rule about rounding/returning ("the offender shall be warned, the coach notified, and each subsequent violation ") about ejection on any cases after a warning?
3) If the miss of 1st is appealed, the BR put out as not reaching 1st, so the OBS penalty (not being put out between 1st & 2nd) would not apply.

Just to clarify the runner touched first initially. Its after the obstruction while returning to first am i talking about (A)touching first again after obstruction (B) no touching of first after obstruction.

Yes if in ituj the BR would have made 2nd had the obstruction not occured you can award 2nd but since the BR is obstructed returning to 1st it would be a hard sell awarding 2nd.

I am working on the assumption that A and B relates to the returning to first base after the obstruction and the umpire is protecting the runner to first base.

NCAA 9.3.3.1 The obstructed runner, after being obstructed, safely obtains the base she would have been awarded, in the umpires judgement, had there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different runner. The obstructed runner is no longer protectedif she leaves the base.

Therefore in (A) the runner is not longer protected and out, in (B) the runner is protected and not out.

Yes a rounding and returning warning would be given and the NCAA 9.4.2.3 penalty an subsequent violations by the same individual shall result in a one-base award to the obstructed runner and any other runner forced to advance.

Thank you mgkblue!! that was exactly the interpretation that i had of that ruling with the situation! i was looking for someone else to interpret it the same way i was. LOL

I visualized " F5 throws to second for an out on the BR attempting to advance to 2nd" as a close enough play that the OBS kept BR from starting her advance on the throw to 3rd, meaning that an umpire could judge she would have made it w/o the OBS.