I requested that my state request an official interpretation because these case plays are actually discussed in our association's study guide (and I'm working on the 2020 updates to that guide).
I asked my state to submit the following question to the NFHS:
On the following play, are R1 and R2 allowed to score because B5’s “out” for passing R1 is not a force out? Or, is this a time play where R2 and R1’s runs only count if they touched home before B5 passed R1?
PLAY: R2 & R1, two outs. B5 hits a home run (out of the park). While running the bases, B5 touches first base and then passes R1.
Here is why I am asking this question: The above-play was in the casebook for years as play 9.1.1 Situation M, but was removed in 2016 (I believe). That casebook play held that R2 and R1 were allowed to score. Then, in addition to 9.1.1. Situation M being removed from the casebook in 2016, a new case play was added (3.3.1 Situation FF). As set forth in the 2019 casebook, that case play does not have the same facts as the old 9.1.1 Situation M, but its holding in part (b) (stating that a time play exists) seems to directly contradict the old 9.1.1 Situation M holding.
I know that just because a specific play was removed from the casebook, does not mean that the removed play’s interpretation is no longer valid. Sometimes, a play is removed from the casebook simply due to page constraints and not because the interpretation is no longer valid. (The NFHS has only so many pages it can publish in the casebook).
So, in short, my question is: if there are multiple runners on base with two outs and the batter hits a home run, are the other runners allowed to score if the batter is called out (after having touched first base) for some reason (such as passing a preceding runner, or committing malicious contact)? It is appears to me that there is a conflict between Casebook Play 9.1.1 Situation M (which was in the casebook for years through 2015) and the 2019 casebook play 3.3.1 Situation FF. And, since the NFHS has never explicitly stated that 9.1.1 Situation M is no longer valid (it only removed it from the casebook), it does not appear to me that the conflict between these two plays has been resolved.