[dddunn3d]

Rich - Now I think you're fishing for a reason to excuse the runner's initial improper action.

The AR attached to the rule is where the concept of "immediate effort to touch" comes into the situation ("[The]ordinary play [is]where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged."). This sentence establishes two cases: 1) the "ordinary" play, and 2) all others. This situation as noted in the AR definitely falls under the category of not ordinary. Therefore the runner does not have to be tagged in order to be put out. It is as simple as that.

You wrote:

Bottom line:

"Immediate" is NOT defined in the rules.
He DID attempt to return.
The catcher would NOT have to chase him.
A tag is thus required.
[list=1][*]For the definition of "immediate" refer to the closest dictionary.
[*]He did attempt to return, but as I have tried to explain, once his attempt became non-immediate a tag was not required.
[*]Of course not; the fool runner came to the catcher. But consider this: what if the runner, instead of returning straight to home in his attempt to touch, runs back towards the backstop first, then dodges around awhile, then goes out towards the mound, etc. Are you going to try to make the same case that he must be tagged somewhere along this path? "Of course not," you reply. "The runner would then be out for leaving his basepath." OK, but when/where does the runner establish his basepath? At the point when he first turns towards home? Or when he realizes that he is subject to appeal? Or is it established for him when the defense initiates that appeal? There are too many nuances involved to argue your line-of-reasoning. That's why the AR states that the runners' attempt to return to home to correct the error must be immediate.