|
Perhaps it is not covered in OBR, but it is covered in FED, and that is the rule set being used, so why not just go by the rule here? Why are we dragging OBR interpretations into the mix? I listed the FED rule interpretation that dealt with the situation, and the rule itself uses a missed base as an example.
Sure, if this F3 runs after every runner that crosses 1st base and tags them every single time, then this would not be an unmistakable appeal. But really, who does this? It sure wasn't mentioned in the original post, and would be something that would be important to know, right?
So, let's be realistic and assume F3 only ran after and tagged this one runner because he saw the same missed base that the umpire did. The poster has stated that right away, F3 applied a tag. This indicates that it wasn't any kind of non-chalant tag as Pete Booth has suggested. Now it becomes an unmistakable appeal, and no verbal is required.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
|