If neither player thought there was nothing wrong he had no business interrupting the game.

The judge has both the right and the duty to interrupt a game if he or she see's someone doing something that is breaking the rules. They have to have that ability or else they can't address someone cheating.

If you honestly think this, please never ever be a TO, because the event you run will be a nightmare for everyone involved.

Especially when he clearly dies not know the rules.

The fact that he doesn't know the rules means he shouldn't be a TO in the first place, but it does not mean he shouldn't get involved in general.

Not doing something can never be cheating. At best a missed opportunity.

As was pointed out, you're wrong again. Here's more examples of not doing something that is cheating...

Not taking a stress token when performing a Red Maneuver.

Not removing shield tokens when you suffer damage.

Not drawing damage cards when you suffer damage.

Not flipping over a damage card when you suffer critical damage.

Not taking a stress when performing an upgrade that instructs you to.

Those 5 I can think of off the top of my head I think is proof enough of just how wrong you are.

I agree that what I wrote, when taken literally and not in the context of the OP, sounds a bit harsh. What I was trying to say is that in the situation in the OP, he should not interfere because even if he thought the YT-2400 should be allowed to perform an action, he should not remind the player. At least I did not get the impression from the OP that he was reacting to the opponent denying the player his action due to landing on an obstacle. The OP seems to imply that both players were in agreement that no action could be taken due to the overlapping.

What happens if a TO interferes in a game and tells you something that you know is wrong? Will you be allowed to prove the TO wrong? Or do you run the risk of being DQ'ed simply by questioning their ruling? I ask mainly because I only play casual games. I have not attended a tournament. But if it was me that was the opponent in the OP, I would be arguing with the TO, and show him the rules for overlapping and obstacles in the rulebook.

Will you be allowed to prove the TO wrong? Or do you run the risk of being DQ'ed simply by questioning their ruling?

Depends on the TO I suppose. I'd like to think most would be open to someone correcting them. Assuming of course doing so wouldn't take that long.

No TO should let someone try and debate a ruling with them for 30 minutes for example. But if a TO says one thing, and I can point to the FAQ where it clearly says the opposite then, no TO should have an issue with that.

Any TO that would DQ someone for disagreeing with them on a ruling shouldn't be a TO, and won't likely have anyone show up to their next event.

But for most things the TO's word is final, even if they're wrong. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be open to debate or being shown where they're wrong. But at the same time a TO can't let the whole event grind to a halt just because someone doesn't agree with them on a given ruling.

No of cause not.

I just want a chance to explain why I disagree.