Would you call obstruction?

[Dakota]

I disagree. Too many umpires are looking to overlook obs.

The situation just above is most likely not obs - the runner changed coarse to round the base, not because the runner was impeded, but one thing - describing playing action in writing is never complete.

You can tell if the runner was being impeded, and if not, make a judgment. If you don't see obstruction, don't call it.

I also don't agree with your "beyond reasonable doubt" standard; if the fielder is where the fielder should not be, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the runner. But, there has to be some "doubt" to benefit from.

As I said above and previously several times, just because a fielder is blocking a base or standing in the base line without the ball does not make that fielder guilty of obstruction. Impeding the runner makes that fielder guilty of obstruction. Don't make the call unless the runner is actually impeded.