|
While the general statement is true that a runner "crossing" the plate is considered to have touched the plate, J/R very specifically addresses this situation that if the runner returns to touch the plate after missing it, then the time of the actual touch will supersede the time that he crossed the plate when considering a timing play. In your situation, the run would not score per J/R.
So the next question to address is how accurate is J/R in its writings. NAPBL and JEA address the general concept of the runner crossing the plate without touching it, but neither address a runner returning to the plate after missing it---and how it relates to a time play. When this has occurred in the past---when J/R has been more specific in what they address vs. the other authoritative writings---I've found their writings to have been proven accurate.
The runner gained the advantage of beating the play without the required touch, but the defense then had its appeal rights intact--the offset of providing the benefit to the runner who did not abide by the rules. However, the runner changed the timing of the play when he returned and eliminated the defense's right to appeal by touching the plate. In doing so, he changed the time of the touch as it relates to timing. IMO, there is good logic of fairness in this area specifically addressed by J/R.
I see no reason to alter from J/R here.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|