Isn't this what you do every time you attack someone with a gun or a sword? You force them to make an Athletics roll to resist?
An attack with a sword can be resisted by weapons, athletics, fists (with a stunt), or various kinds of magic (both spells and enchanted items). Guns can't be resisted by weapons by default, but otherwise they have the same list of possible ways to resist them (spells are like guns). Of course, given circumstances might provide other modifiers or even other skills to be capable of resistance (drive if you are in a car or even on a horse, for instance). So no, there's no attack that forces someone to use a particular skill to resist.
In any case, blocks simply don't work by specifying a skill to resist them. That's not how they function, that's not how the rules are written. You specify an action type or types from the following list: move, attack, block, maneuver (and veils allow detection). An area block can stop one of those action types, a single-target block can stop them all. They do not make someone perform a particular action a certain way, they only resist, in general, that type of action. If a player can justify using another skill to overcome the block then that is allowable as far as the rules seem to be written. A GM might allow Might to be used to defend against a magical attack if the player with supernatural strength is holding a metal dumpster to stop the damage. Particular defense skills are TYPICALLY what is used.
Consider the following passage from 309 in YS:
The guiding principle for all uses of the rules in this game is that intent precedes mechanics. What this means is that you should always start off by figuring out what the player wants to accomplish, and then determine how to model that using the rules. This might seem like common sense, but it’s easy to get caught in the trap of looking at the various game actions (like attack, block, declaration, maneuver, etc.) as a straightjacket that limits your available options, rather than as a set of tools to express whatever the player wants to try to do.
Many actions map directly to one of the mechanics already, so most of the time this isn’t going to be very hard—a player says, “I want to punch that dude in the face,” and you reply with,“Okay, that’s an attack using Fists, and he’s going to defend with Fists. Roll it.”
Sometimes it isn’t going to be quite so simple, and a player will say something like, “Well, I want to push the table over the landing while he’s charging me, so that he’ll smash into it before he hits me.” You don’t want to refuse the player just because that action doesn’t clearly fall into one of the basic conflict action types (page 197)— especially because that’s a pretty cool move.
In those cases, you’ll have to tease out a more specific intent from the player, which will allow you to make a decision. If the player says, “Yeah, I want to hurt him with the table,” that might be an attack with Might, and the NPC rolls defense normally. If he says, “I just don’t want to get bowled over by the bull charge,” the NPC could get a defense roll with Athletics and you might give the player credit for declaring the table by letting him tag it as a scene aspect. What matters is that you match the mechanics to the player’s intent, not the other way around
Mandating a particular skill as necessary to overcome some sort of attack or block is putting a straightjacket on the enemy, which is just as bad as putting a straightjacket on the attacker.
