Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
I know that. That's not my issue.
They couldn't/didn't "again" appeal the runner at third because he wasn't appealed in the first place.
|
Ridiculous quibble, and wrong to boot. Forest wrote, "They could appeal again for a 4th out appeal," not "They could appeal R3 again for a 4th out appeal."
Having already appealed R1, the defense would be appealing
again if they also appealed R3 for an advantageous 4th out.