[PandaBear]

In a case like that, where obstruction was called before the runner returning to the base successfully reached the base, then yes, there would be an award of 2nd base. This is the scenario Rich is referring to, where it would be type 1 obstruction (NCAA), or 8.3.2 (Fed).

In this particular case, F3 was initially in the typical pickoff position, which doesn't (and didn't) block the bag. He did move forward to make the catch, of a less than perfect play (probably why it wound up E1, though in my experience, that would be reserved for a throw that got away or at least pulled the fielder so far that making a play wasn't possible), and its possible obstruction was called as he moved to make the catch, even though, in this particular case, it didn't block access to the base in any way.

Rich is right, in that no contact is required to have obstruction, but passing between a runner and the base he's moving toward isn't automatically obstruction either.

I suspect in this case, though the umpire never signaled obstruction (reminder of why signal mechanics matter, it makes it clear what you are calling [whether you are right or wrong!], which is helpful in untangling complex plays like this one, where several things happened), that's what he ruled. Whether the observer agreed with the ruling is another matter, but that was his judgement.

But what if in a similar situation, there clearly is no obstruction prior to the runner obtaining the base, where the defender in possession of the ball is approaching from a different angle, and a different side of the base, from that of the runner. Further, once the runner successfully attains the base they are attempting, protection from any prior obstruction ends. If that runner is then subsequently forced off the base, any attempt to return to that base that encountered physical contact by a defensive player who doesn't have the ball would be obstruction, but when said defensive player posses the ball, he can block all day, and that isn't obstruction.

I'm surprised the specific act of a force off by a defensive player in possession of the ball isn't addressed, as I've seen it happen several times over the years, and at various levels/sanctions. This isn't a "maybe once in your career" situation.

Because its obviously not a "proper" play, I've never had any blowback for calling time, and restoring the player to the base. I suspect that might not be the case were a forward award made if there was in fact clearly no obstruction prior to the force off, which would take the scenarios Rich addressed out of the equation.

It does sound like these cases are in fact covered only either by a call of obstruction prior to reaching the base, which while best called before the runner reaches the base, can be announced and signaled after the fact, OR invoking of the variations of what was referred to as the "god rule", which does exist in every code in some form or another, if challenged. And while an MLB interp might be a useful opinion to learn from, it wouldn't carry any regulatory weight in other codes. It would make sense to treat a force off as a form of obstruction, similar to the fake tag language.