What constitutes an "attempt to advance"?

[PandaBear]

Situation arose on a catchers interference call under NFHS rules.

In the play, the batter put the ball in play as a fair grounder, but was put out at first. R1 broke from 3rd (unforced) upon the ball being hit, before I had time to signal and verbalize obstruction, and scored on the play.

8-1-1 e 1 states that "Any runner attempting to advance on a catcher's obstruction of the batter shall be awarded the base he is attempting."

HOWEVER, it also states "If obstruction is enforced, all other runners on the play will return to base occupied at time of the pitch [excludes when forced to advance]. The batter is awarded first base, if he did not reach base."

Is attempting to advance unforced on the play considered "attempting to advance"? The rule identifies examples of attempting to advance to include steal or squeeze "(i.e., steal or squeeze)", but that seems to be a statement of examples, and is not to be considered an exclusive or comprehensive list of acts that are considered "attempts to advance".

Obstruction was enforced (at coaches option), and the batter awarded 1st base (out nullified), but the point of discussion and confusion was whether the runner's advance should also stand, under "shall be awarded the base he is attempting" clause, or not, under the "all other runners on the play will return to base occupied at time of pitch" clause.

These clauses are semantically in conflict, and the current case book offers no clarification. Consultation of another rule code that happens to have the same effective language (probably modeled after NFHS) unfortunately also didn't offer any clarification on this point either.

Has anyone seen clarification or an interpretation on this matter?

[bob jenkins]

You're overthinking it. "Steal" and "squeeze" are examples, but the rule means that the runner is advancing (hard) at the time of the OBS. It's to prevent a wily F2 from intentionally interfering when the runner has such a good jump that there's not going to be a play on him.

[PandaBear]

I tend to agree; why penalize the offense for a defensive violation? But there were those of the opinion that the last clause, returning the batter, should prevail over the first clause, when we post-gamed it. NFHS Softball lacks the clause about awarding/allowing the runner's advance, and allows advance only when forced if obstruction is enforced.

Does anyone have handy earlier years' NFHS baseball rules to see if the current wording has changed recently? And perhaps other codes may not have caught up? Upon reading Bob J's observation about its purpose, it does read like there might have been the addition to address the very situation Bob notes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

I tend to agree; why penalize the offense for a defensive violation? But there were those of the opinion that the last clause, returning the batter, should prevail over the first clause, when we post-gamed it. NFHS Softball lacks the clause about awarding/allowing the runner's advance, and allows advance only when forced if obstruction is enforced.

Does anyone have handy earlier years' NFHS baseball rules to see if the current wording has changed recently? And perhaps other codes may not have caught up? Upon reading Bob J's observation about its purpose, it does read like there might have been the addition to address the very situation Bob notes.

The wording hasn't changed; and the other codes have the same interp.

In your OP, there's no "automatic" advance for R3 -- he wasn't advancing at the time of the CI. So the coach gets a choice -- the penalty (BR to grist, R3 returns) or the play (BR out, R3 scores).