Judgement based on the info that I have. What if a spaceship used its tractor beam and threw the runner in to the fielder? Not enough info.
Since we are playing detective based on photos. I will offer an argument against MC.
In slide 12, R1 is holding F4's cap as if to say "Good sir, you seem to have lost your TOP hat. Allow me to dust it off for you."
Nah, I still have MC. See slide 3-4. Runner must avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.
This is fun.
What if the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - still MC. If so: Why?
And how could the fielder be making a play if he didn't have the ball - which he clearly didn't.
IMO, the standards are different for Obstruction vs. "Attempt to avoid" in FED.
While a fielder is not protected from obstruction while "in the immediate act of making a play on him", If the fielder is "in the immediate act of making a play on him" of fielding the thrown ball, the runner must still attempt to avoid him. I see no evidence that the runner attempted to avoid the fielder here.
So for me, the only judgement is to determine whether there is OBS because the fielder does not have the ball, or if the runner is out for failing to avoid, or if he is out for failing to avoid + EJ'd for MC.
Based on the evidence available, even if the fielder was obstructing, I still have MC, so it's all moot.
Please answer part 1 - WHAT IF (not what you think might have actually happened on this play) the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - would you still call it MC and why?
In another sport's terms, Is it a blocking foul or a charge and thus what additional penalty is applied to whom?