[QUOTE=CoachJM]Pete,

While I agree with your conclusions for the most part, I believe there is a material flaw in your reasoning - and I don't think it's just semantics.

IMO we are talking semantics.

A base runner has the right during continuous action to correct their base-running mistakes. At that moment since the action is un-relaxed or another way to explain it is "during continuous action" we as umpires do not recognize appeals. IMO, a fielder tagging someone off the base or tagging someone who didn't touch the base to begin with is not an appeal it's called making a play on a runner.

Example:

R1 stealing on the pitch and overslides the base. He then immediately trys to correct his mistake. F4 standing on the base says "Hey Blue he missed second base" At that moment F4's appeal means nothing.

The runner has to be tagged. If a fielder tags the runner out he is not going to then "appeal it" unless it is the advantageous 4th out to cancel a run. Therefore IMO we are talking semantics concerning this play.

Pete Booth

Pete B.,

Let's say in the initial sitch, there were two outs and an R3. The play happens as described and the R3 scores before the F3 tags the BR as he is returning to the bag. Both the BU and F3 saw the BR miss the bag as he passed it.

Does the R3's run count?

If it's "just a tag out", it's a timing play and the R3 scores. If it's a 7.10(b) missed base appeal, it's a run-nullifying third out and the R3 doesn't score.

That's why I think it's not just semantics.

JM

I can live with that. "Blue, he missed the bag," would not make it unmistakable; that would be a verbal request.

Gee whiz. :(