[AtlUmpSteve]

It seems to me that the 5-5.B NOTE would allow an appeal for a more advantageous third out, saying "NOTE: An appeal can be made after the third out in order to nullify a run." That would seem to indicate, to me, that an alternate third out which is more advantageous can be made by appeal. It seems to me that the intent of 5-5.C is to amplify that by making clear that the run cannot score if a runner who appears to have scored is appealed as a fourth out for missing a base or leaving one too soon.

And all of this would be clear and as everyone understands it to be, until a certain casebook ruling was published in 2005 (5.5-7), adding (IMO) something not stated in the rule, nor intended (I don't believe); that this now limited the fourth out to an appeal of a runner who has scored.

I see this as a simple bad casebook ruling which attempts to make two rules (5-5.B Note and 5.5-C) contradict and limit, when 5.5-C was intended to add to 5.5-B, not limit it. The rule doesn't need to be revisited, or even clarified; the bad casebook ruling needs to be rescinded.