[cpa]

I had this exact play earlier this year in exactly the same situation except it was only the runner from first to second who failed to advance properly. I called the runner out (without waiting for appeal) and then wrestled w/ it for 2 weeks after and finally came to the conclusion I made a horsesh--t call.

My reasoning -- I called the the runner from first to second out because she stopped 40 FEET SHORT of second base, removed her helmet, and ran in the dugout. Relying on the rules supplement, I reasoned there was no appeal play here -- the rules supplement says MISSING a base is an appeal play, not failure to touch. She did not "miss" the base -- she never got anywhere near it -- Instead of waiting for an appeal, I called her out immediately.

But if you go back to the actual rule book, it clearly says FAILURE TO TOUCH is an appeal play, NOT "missing a base".

There is a helluva lot of difference between the 2 -- I can't buy that stopping 40 feet short of second is "missing" second, but I can accept it as failure to touch.

So I think I got it wrong -- although I do think the rules supplement on appeals needs to change the verbage to conform to the actual rule -- "missing a base" means can mean something entirely different than "failure to touch"