Runner Missing 1st base on a force play

[Kaliix]

7.10(b) could legitimately read "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged."

That is the rule. Plain, simple, unencumbered. I am not aware of any "interpretation" that is allowed to contradict the actual written rule.

It sounds to me like the people who disagreed with the rule didn't have sound reading comprehension skills and didn't posses an understanding of the rules of logic.

Your agrument quoted below is flawed. The rule specifically deals with the runner failing to touch a base in order by referring to a runner going past a base and not touching it as MISSING A BASE!!!

It is not semantics. The runner failed to touch the bases in order because he missed the base on his way by. That is the rule. It is specifically why the runner can be called out on appeal..., for missing a base.

Going by a base and not touching it is not touching the bases in order because you MISSED THE BASE. It has nothing to do with whether you touched another base. The rule specifically states that the runner can be advancing or returning and be called out on appeal.

I don't care what someones interpretation is if their interpretation specifically contradicts what the actual rule reads and says. That can not be allowed and makes no sense....

You wrote:
1.) 7.10(b) says nothing about "touching out of order", per se: the rule says runner is out if he "FAILS TO TOUCH EACH BASE IN ORDER" before being appealed for the missed base. Thus, the viewpoint of those who want to use 7.10(b) as written (in most cases - see below), and don't understand your way of saying "use (d) at all bases, not just home".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first part is simple semantics. Your not guilty of touching bases out of order nor guilty of not touching bases in order if you have only touched one base, can't do that so let's drop that part. I'll handle the second part of that down further.