[night_ninja]

Going back to greymule's original scenario, I would have to disagree with his "theory" of an "accidental" appeal. In 8-2 Penalty it is clearly stated that on a fourth-out appeal, "an appeal may be made after the third out as long as it is made properly and the resulting appeal is an apparent fourth out". There is no doubt the the "resulting appeal" in this situation is an apparent fourth out, so we now must prove that the appeal was "made properly". Although the play described is a force play as described in 2-29-3, I am going to cite 8.2.3 SITUATION in the Fed 2002 Case Book. This case is a similar situation at first where the batter-runner misses first base, but the fielder "casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw". According to the new appeal process, this is not a proper appeal as the fielder was not making it clear to the umpire that an appeal was being made. However, the ruling is that the batter-runner is out "because a force play is being made ... and is the result of continuing action". The key words there are "continuing action". In greymule's example, the force play WAS NOT part of the continuing action, therefore a proper appeal must be made, i.e. the fielder must make it clear to the umpire he is making an appeal, not just plop his butt on the bag while in possession of the ball. If I were the umpire in this situation, I would not grant that appeal unless a coach or player verbally stated that they wanted to appeal that missed base. Then and only then would I grant the appeal and nullify all the runs scored.