Yes just yes. They did NOT say impede. They said collide. Did you see them run towards the incoming throw NO YOU DIDNT!!! taking the word of the player does not mean you are always right. Common sense knows you can block a advancing runner. Once again...did you see throw? But if it's timing and they caused obstruction then runner would be called safe. More bread please.
No! Just NO! You're wrong again! Then you try to spin it into this "what if...you didn't see it....what if Venus collided with Earth" scenario. Let me type out the definition of Obstruction from the Rule Book (You definitely should have one of these):
OBSTRUCTION: The act of a defensive team member:
A. Who hinders of impedes a batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball.
B. Who impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases unless the fielder is;
1. in possession of the ball
2. in the act of fielding a batted ball.
NOTE: Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the batter-runner or a runner.
Direct quote from the OP: If I am going up the line to catch the ball and collide with the runner trying to score what is the call.
Going to catch means doesn't have possession. It is a thrown ball not a batted ball. Neither B1 or B2 is in effect. It IS Obstruction.
I'm going to say this again, if NCASAUmp and Irish both say you screwed up the rule, say you are wrong, learn from it and move on. Stop trying to find a way to justify your bad explanation. It was just wrong. There is no scenario where that catcher can collide with the runner without the ball and it not be obstruction.
But what if.... Was the catcher fielding a batted ball? No. Was he already in possession of the ball? No. OBSTRUCTION. And in what universe is colliding with the runner not a form of impeding (without being one of the two above scenarios)?
Ironically from our other discussion, if the catcher collides with the runner without the ball in the OP's situation, guess what the umpire signals now?