How would you rule on this?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jchamp

Would the proper ruling depend on whether (a) the catch had been made yet when she was obstructed, and (b) if she was moving towards the next base or the previous base?

No, it wouldn't. Not sure why anyone might think that.

I thought that if she was moving back to the original base and is obstructed, she is entitled to the base she is attempting to run towards (even if a pick-off play is in progress) based on the doctrine that the defense should not be able to prevent a runner from returning to a base left too soon.

I'm not aware of any doctrines in the rulebook. Shall we instead base our rulings on what the rulebook actually says? When we (umpires) see obstruction, we are to determine what base she would have achieved absent the obstruction... she is protected A) to that base and B) between the bases where she was when obstructed. In this scenario, A is 2nd base and B is between 2nd and 3rd. 8-5-2 tells us that when a baserunner is put out between the bases where she's obstructed, it's a dead ball and we then announce the award.

If the ball was still in flight, would that add that the ball be dead on the catch,

Egads why? Obs is and always is a DELAYED dead ball, which may change in the future to a dead ball on certain conditions, none of which are present here.

and the runner returned at that time, based on which base she attempts to move to after the dead ball is called. That is, if she returns to second, then she's okay, but if she moves directly to third, an appeal can be made.

we would NEVER EVER base anything on what direction she happens to move when a dead ball is called (not that we call one here anyway). We announce the award. If she retouches in the process of accepting her awarded base, she's fine. If not, THEN she's subject to appeal.

Why are otherwise good umpires wanting to add bits to the rulebook here. Obstruction is EASY. Don't make it difficult. Don't try to determine what's fair, what someone's intent was, or other irrelevant information. If you feel this particular case is "unfair" to the defense, perhaps they shouldn't have obstructed in the first place!