Does the attacker commit an offence before he shoots?
The wording of 9.12 Rule Proper, and a restructuring of the Explanation, to present it as a prohibition rather than as an exception to what is permitted (the current format, which may be confusing), may help you to decide
The statement in the UMB is rather odd. I have never seen a movement that was not active i.e. an action, but the meaning is clear if it is understood that it is the prevention of playing the ball by an opposing tackler that is meant by “movement to prevent the playing of the ball” These people are not good with syntax. A fatal flaw when explaining Rules.
I think that Few will even bother to look at the above video even though it runs for only 64 seconds, because it is obvious what the subject matter is,
Obstruction? “Boring”, “Not interested” , “Not that again”
Together with the dangerously played ball (same reactions), dangerous use of the stick and physical contact, the Obstruction Rule is among the most important of the Rules that have been enacted.
It is as fundamental to the way in which hockey should be played as the Rules concerning physical contact are. Yet there is even less interest in getting it understood and applied correctly than there is in instituting sane control of a ball raised high at another player (which appears to be near zero). There is outright refusal in some quarters to discuss either action, obstruction or a dangerously played ball. One has only to watch a hockey match for a few minutes to see the consequences of that.
But.
“When you make people believe they are thinking they will love you, when you actually make them think they will hate you”. Don Marquis
That is generally true.
Rules of Hockey 