I know I can say She said that if it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
But can I say:
In the past, if it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
Does the second one work? It will mix with the unreality structure?
Thanks so much!
For a past, real conditional, you can say
(In the past) if it rained, they didn't go outside.
or
(In the past) if it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
Regarding the latter form, it doesn't matter if the verb tenses are the same as a present unreal conditional: context and speaker's intention will make the meaning clear.
Since you are talking about a conditional in the past and how it is not probable anymore, it is more correct to use the third conditional:
In the past, if it had rained, they wouldn't have gone outside.
As strange as it sounds, "rained" isn't really past tense here, but actually future. It's a little weird, so let's go more in-depth.
If we dissect this sentence, we see an if-then statement:
If it rains, they won't go outside.
This statement is in the past tense:
If it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
It's also proposed by "she:"
She said that if it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
Yours we can apply the same concept to:
If it rains, they won't go outside.
It's in the past tense as well:
If it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
Now, you seem to be emphasizing the "past" part of the sentence:
In the past, if it rained, they wouldn't have gone outside. (I believe "have gone" is better than "go" now do to the "in the past" preposition, but either probably works.)
The difference in these is that in yours, you're emphasizing the "past," which implies that the present is different. In the original, the "past" isn't emphasized, but you know that the information comes from a third person, "she." Therefore, they're different, but if you wanted both meanings, you could do the following:
She said that in the past, if it rained, they wouldn't go outside. or In the past, she said, if it rained, they wouldn't go outside.