[AtlUmpSteve]

There were several important issues in this play. The following is the official ruling and thought process.

When a play was made at 1st base on the BR, the BR was required to touch the orange bag. Touching only the white bag is a missed base, and can be appealed until the runner returns to either bag. In this case the runner proceeded to 2nd, so the runner did, in fact miss touching the correct base.

The attempt to retire the other runner is not considered a next play; it is a continuation of the current play, would be considered a subsequent play on a different runner under the obstruction exception, but has no bearing on an appeal. When appealed, the correct ruling should be "out". If the ruling is that the BR did touch the orange bag, then that part would be judgment, but any statement that touching white alone would be allowed is a misinterpretation of a playing rule. Since there was no play made between the misinterpretation and the protest, the protest must be allowed; and since the rule was misapplied in the case play (if not clearly stated in the OP), the ruling must be overturned.

So, don't be confused by the "next play"; it was a red herring in the case play, and sure bit Mike. Once the continuing action ended, and time is called (in slow pitch) or could be called (in fast pitch) to hear a dead ball appeal, then and only then can there be a "next play" that would halt a legal protest.