BI but R2 Retreats

[NavyBlue]

NFHS.  R2 starts to steal 3B.  We get BI on F2's throw to 3B, but, R2 only goes halfway and retreats back to 2B.  Are we still calling BI even though there was no play at 3B?

I suspect there's some judgment involved.  If R2 only feinted a steal and we had the BI, vs him actually trying to steal and retreating, vs a full steal attempt.  

[834k3r]

2 minutes ago, NavyBlue said:

Are we still calling BI even though there was no play at 3B?

I would. Any nuances to the contrary would fall squarely in the category of HTBT, IMO.

[johnnyg08]

Yes. When the attempt to put out the runner is unsuccessful, we enforce the penalty:

 

[Tborze]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Yes. When the attempt to put out the runner is unsuccessful, we enforce the penalty:

 

I would tend to agree with this except for the fact there was no play to be made. You could argue they had an opportunity to get R2 going back to 2nd, but I think that would be a HTBT situation. 
Couldn’t we use “weak INT” interp to the situation of the throw from F2 to F1. 
Ball is dead, runners return??  

[johnnyg08]

5 minutes ago, Tborze said:

I would tend to agree with this except for the fact there was no play to be made. You could argue they had an opportunity to get R2 going back to 2nd, but I think that would be a HTBT situation. 
Couldn’t we use “weak INT” interp to the situation of the throw from F2 to F1. 
Ball is dead, runners return??  JK

Off hand, I can't remember if NFHS has "retired on the initial throw" interpretation that OBR has, but in my mind, what the runner does once they start stealing the base isn't necessarily relevant to batter interference or not. An attempt to retire a runner is a play. The throw to F5 at 3B is an attempt to retire the runner, the runner chose to retreat to 2B. The batter is out and the runner remains at 2B. 

F2s throw to F5 at 3B is an attempted play. 

Let's say a rundown ensues....I would suggest to the forum that once the initial throw fails to retire the runner, we stop play and enforce the BI. 

What do you think? 

[Senor Azul]

What exactly did the batter do for you to get BI, Mr. NavyBlue? I ask because FED actually has some guidelines for judging batter's interference during a steal of third:

2023 NFHS case book play 7.3.5 Situation E:

With less than two outs, R2 on second and B2 at the plate, R2 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R2 return to second? Ruling:  B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to a position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless B2 moves or re-establishes a position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

[Tborze]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Off hand, I can't remember if NFHS has "retired on the initial throw" interpretation that OBR has, but in my mind, what the runner does once they start stealing the base isn't necessarily relevant to batter interference or not. An attempt to retire a runner is a play. The throw to F5 at 3B is an attempt to retire the runner, the runner chose to retreat to 2B. The batter is out and the runner remains at 2B. 

F2s throw to F5 at 3B is an attempted play. 

Let's say a rundown ensues....I would suggest to the forum that once the initial throw fails to retire the runner, we stop play and enforce the BI. 

What do you think? 

Could/should we enforce it the same way we do with an engaged F1 throwing to an unoccupied base in regard to recognizing when it is an attempt or not to retire a runner?  

What if R2 takes a normal lead but someone yelled 3!  If there was BI and the throw goes into left field, I would be inclined to kill it and not allow R2 3rd on the over throw and not enforce the BI. 
Is there rules support or am I MSU?

I do believe FED has retired on the initial throw. And, I 100% agree the ball is dead after the initial throw and a run down occurs. But, if a run down occurs, there WAS an opportunity to retire a runner 

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

But, if a run down occurs, there WAS an opportunity to retire a runner 

The OP reads "Starts to steal 3B" so we need to take that at face value. 

But if they have an initial throw provision like OBR, we need to stop it and enforce the BI because R2 was not retired on the initial throw by F2. So whatever happens after that is irrelevant. 

To your first point about balks....obr covers bluffs versus an actual attempt to acquire the next base. A bluff should be ruled a balk and that's the judgement piece. (We love judgement don't we?) 🙂

[NavyBlue]

8 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

What exactly did the batter do for you to get BI, Mr. NavyBlue?

He moved backwards in the box and turned to watch the anticipated play at 3B, interfering with the catcher's throw in the process.

[Velho]

24 minutes ago, NavyBlue said:

He moved backwards in the box and turned to watch the anticipated play at 3B, interfering with the catcher's throw in the process.

"Keep your eye everlastingly on the ball" is not advice solely for umpires. 😂

[maven]

9 hours ago, NavyBlue said:

He moved backwards in the box and turned to watch the anticipated play at 3B, interfering with the catcher's throw in the process.

That's batter INT. 

[Kevin_K]

18 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Off hand, I can't remember if NFHS has "retired on the initial throw" interpretation that OBR has, but in my mind, what the runner does once they start stealing the base isn't necessarily relevant to batter interference or not. An attempt to retire a runner is a play. The throw to F5 at 3B is an attempt to retire the runner, the runner chose to retreat to 2B. The batter is out and the runner remains at 2B. 

F2s throw to F5 at 3B is an attempted play. 

Let's say a rundown ensues....I would suggest to the forum that once the initial throw fails to retire the runner, we stop play and enforce the BI. 

What do you think? 

So playing devil's advocate....

A runner feigns a steal. F2 attempts to retire the runner at their last legally occupied base but BR interferes with the throw. Are we grabbing an out on the runner?

The throw behind the runner is an attempted play, isn't it?

[noumpere]

8 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

So playing devil's advocate....

A runner feigns a steal. F2 attempts to retire the runner at their last legally occupied base but BR interferes with the throw. Are we grabbing an out on the runner?

The throw behind the runner is an attempted play, isn't it?

Of course it is.

 

Sometimes, you just need to umpire.

[johnnyg08]

9 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

So playing devil's advocate....

A runner feigns a steal. F2 attempts to retire the runner at their last legally occupied base but BR interferes with the throw. Are we grabbing an out on the runner?

The throw behind the runner is an attempted play, isn't it?

For sure. We see this on back picks and a LH batter hitting.