[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

For the benefit of anyone reading this thread, I think these needs to be addressed.

So, the runner while returning to retouch 1B missed 2B, touches 1B, and returns to 2B. She is now standing on 2B when the defense appeals she missed 2B on the way back to retouch 1B.

Is the runner ruled "safe" on this appeal?

If not, what is the rationale for ruling her out?

She did in fact return to touch the base she missed. She just did not properly retouch 1B, but she still can if she can beat the defense to the base, correct?

To get the out, does the defense have to appeal she did not "legally" retouch 1B?

Or, is she ruled out because she did not touch the bases in the proper (reverse) order (1, 2 rather than 2, 1)?

BTW, who among us thinks in this scenario (misses 2B, re-touches 1B, returns to stand on 2B) that any youth team will make any appeal at all?

Yes, the runner is retouching 2B. No matter what anyone believes, the argument is valid. So is Steve's that this runner is still required to return and touch 1B to avoid an appeal for leaving early.

The point of me taking this route was to see how many would be so focused on the issue of missing 2B, they may overlook the point that to regain the proper order of touching the bases, the runner failed to complete the return to tough the initial base involved in the violation.