I think this is too complicated. When you are dribbling the ball and use your body to shield, you have half a second to transition to another position otherwise it's obstruction (unless both the ball and feet are moving at the same time). I think that's the simpler way to call it.
To simplify the commentary, the point of emphasis is that it is not obstruction simply because one interposes their body between the ball and an opponent. There is no aspect in the rule that an obstruction can't happen if the ball and/or feet are moving. In fact, if a player in possession of the ball backs into an opponent -- his/her feet are moving and so is the ball. Regardless, the nuances of what actually is obstruction can make obstruction (or what isn't obstruction) a difficult call. Unfortunately, too many umpires and coaches, especially at lower levels, over simplify obstruction and call it to the lowest common understanding.
"Not impeding" is a wholly inaccurate invention. The Rule besides stating that the ball shall not be shielded with the stick or any part of the body goes on to state :- "A player with the ball is permitted to move off with it in any direction except bodily into an opponent or into a position between the ball and an opponent who is within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play it" That clearly means that a player must not move to position between the ball and an opponent to prevent a tackle attempt which could otherwise have been made. Please apply the Rule and stop trying to justify not doing so..
I agree but [a] the goalkeeper wasn't trying to play the ball when the attacker took up a position that interposed her body between the goalkeeper and the ball. And [b] in the field play, the player didn't have the ball -- she turned and collected a free ball, then she began to move and, when she did, she didn't move bodily into the woman who dispossessed herself of the ball.
As you pointed out during he video the goalkeeper could not "go around" to attempt a tackle because that would have presented an open goal. The ball was obviously shielded to prevent the goalkeeper playing at it and if this action had not been carried out a tackle attempt could have been made. It is absurdly unfair to demand of a goalkeeper an action which is near impossible and would 'gift' her opponent a goal - umpires are supposed to be judges of fair play. The field player moved bodily into the playing reach of the goalkeeper while shielding the ball from her to prevent a tackle attempt, that is obstruction. The field player did not dispossess herself her opponent stepped between her and the ball and then prevented a tackle attempt by not moving away with the ball, instead turning to shield the ball past the dispossessed player who was still within playing distance of the ball and attempting to play at it. "Moving bodily into" is more accurately interpreted as moving into the playing reach of an opponent rather than as moving into physical contact, as that action is covered in another clause and there is no need to repeat the admonishment. From the video it is difficult to know what you would consider to be obstructive play.
I'll have to re-listen. The goalkeeper COULD do that but, they wouldn't WANT to do that. That doesn't means that the player with the ball can't take up a position that can only be resolved by the goalkeeper if he/she moves in a manner that the goalkeeper doesn't WANT to move.
