Is this obstruction?

[MD Longhorn]

The shorthand here has gotten you confused.

All rulesets have "in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL" as part of their exceptions to obstruction. Definitions and verbiage are not identical, and when that protection ends is different --- but it's in ALL of them.

The OP referred to a player "in the act of fielding a THROWN ball" - which is COMPLETELY different in all respects.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The shorthand here has gotten you confused.

All rulesets have "in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL" as part of their exceptions to obstruction. Definitions and verbiage are not identical, and when that protection ends is different --- but it's in ALL of them.

The OP referred to a player "in the act of fielding a THROWN ball" - which is COMPLETELY different in all respects.

Mike, I understand that. What I did not understand was the comment from another poster who seemed to imply the LL modification that did not have an act of fielding clause made it somehow less likely to have obstruction called on the play I described. Clearly, the LL modification had to do with thrown balls which makes it even MORE imperative for the defense not to impede the runner when they are tossing the ball around and a fielder is not in possession of the ball.

[Larry1953]

Sorry I was not sure how to edit. The "other poster" was Rich Ives who wrote

The LL rule does NOT include "in the act of fielding" - no matter what your source says.