Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed
It's just practicality. In the great majority of retouch appeals, it is obvious to everyone that tagging the base is an appeal. In fact it usually has been obvious for a second or two before the base is tagged, while the throw is made to the base. And, the runner is returning because he knows he didn't retouch. Otherwise he typically would be trying to reach the next base.
It is the opposite with most missed base appeals when the runner is scrambling back. Let's take a play at second base, which the runner has rounded and is now scrambling back to. If the runner believes that he did touch second, he is scrambling back because he can't safely reach third, and he is liable to be put out until he reaches second. However, he's liable to be put out whether he touched the base or not. So the runner behaves in the same way whether he thinks he missed the base or touched it.
Similarly, the fielder may believe the runner missed the base, but he usually can't know if the umpire has seen it. So he needs to act in the same way, whether the base was missed or not. Usually, when the runner is close by and scrambling back, the appeal of a missed base is not unmistakable.
In summary, 99% of retouch appeals are obvious, scramble back or not. Scramble back missed base appeals very seldom are obvious. That's why the two situations are treated differently.
|
I disagree. The distinction between retouch and missed base appeals has nothing to do with how obvious the appeal is.
The two appeals are governed by different rules. 7.08(d) and 7.10(a) for retouch appeals, and 7.10(b) and 7.10(d) for missed base appeals.
Especially extending 7.10(d) to all bases makes a difference since it includes the expression "makes no attempt to return." That expression does not appear in the rule for retouch appeals.