This is easy to take a step farther.
Suppose in my situation that after the collision instead of bouncing off of each other they both fell with the fielder landing on the runners legs and the fielder immediately rolls off while the runner tries to get up. Now, the fielder who did not have the ball has impeded the runner. Obstruction?
You must say yes to be consistent. And I'm saying no. The impedance was falling on top of them. (I can see not getting off, but not being on top very briefly.) The impedance occurred with the ball during the wreck. Legal impedance. Subsequently I must see new impedance. That's where I was going before and I think it's consistent both with the rules, the way it's called (including how you're saying you'd call it), and with how the players want it called.
Now we could have a separate discussion about what constitutes new impedance. But at that point we're arguing about where the line is, and not if there is a line. And that's a discussion I'd love to continue. Because usually I hear, the line is where you judge it to be. Which is of course worthless since the question is what framework do I use to make that distinction.
________
Vaporizer information