I think what somebody else is saying is that the runner can't be out twice can he?

So you can't tag R1 out for being off of the base, and then appeal the same runner? Is that correct? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Thanks.

According to J/R re: Missed Base Appeals:

A missed base appeal of first (rounded), second or third occurs only when action is relaxed and (a) the allegedly missed base is tagged, or (b) the suspect runner is tagged on another base.

NOTE: If a suspect runner is tagged off base, there is a play and an out, but not an appeal; a subsequent appeal of such runner's missed base is not allowed.

There are two relevant examples (edited for brevity).

1. Missed second base, not an appeal, unrelaxed action: R1, R3, two outs, hit and run. The batter singles and R1 passes, but does not touch, second base. F4 recognizes the miss as does R1, who stops his advance to third and scrambles back toward second. F4 gloves F9's throw and tags second before R1's return. Because action is unrelaxed, there is not an appeal. In regard to R3, if there is a tag of R1, there is a time play. This is not an appeal, therefore it is not a force out. An appeal of R1's initial miss of second base is not allowed (Emphasis added)

2. Missed second base, not an appeal, unrelaxed action. R3, R1, two outs. Ground ball gloved by F6, who attempts to tag the sliding R1 instead of the base. The tag is missed, and R1 slides past the base without touching it. As R1 scrambles back to the base, F6 tags him (not an appeal, not a force out) before he can return. R3 scored before the tag was applied (time play). The defense wishes to appeal that R1 missed second base (advantageous 4th out) to negate the run. The appeal is not allowed. (emphasis added)

Sure he can. BR misses 1st and is tagged out at third. The first time he is out is on the tag. He is also out on appeal for missing 1st. Runner is still out, but for different reasons.

Those are two of the most misguided rules interpretations that are out there.

J/R has taken the missed base appeal and made it more difficult than it should be. This is another instance that I disagree with their interpretation. They are applying the missed home plate requirements and applying them to the rest of the bases. If the rules makers wanted it like that, they could have made it so. There is no such thing as relaxed/unrelaxed action. If a runner misses a base and the defense proplerly appeals the missed base by tagging said base, the runner is out whether or not he was trying to get back to the missed base.

J/R has missed the boat on this and refuses to rectify their misinterpretation.

Thanks for the examples, dash. I remember reading the second one, but not the first. From the second example, I thought the fact that the runner was in the vicinity of the base precluded the gaining of the advantageous 4th out, but apparently the J/R interprets the first example the same way. I still don't see why the defense couldn't appeal for the advantageous fourth out.

If a runner misses a base and the defense properly appeals the missed base by tagging [it], the runner is out whether or not he was trying to get back to the missed base.

Can't fault your logic, UmpTTS43, since that's the letter of the rule book. But that's not how they call it in OBR. (Just in case anyone is interested, ASA softball does permit an immediate appeal on a missed base. Whether the runner is returning to touch or is in the vicinity is irrelevant. ASA also does not recognize relaxed versus unrelaxed action.)

No, I'm saying that if he's past second, there has to be an appeal of the missed base to cancel the run.

Rita

In that case, I echo mbyron's first post.

How about the appeal being obvious since R1 had attained or almost attained 3B when he ran back. A tag at this point might be equivalent to the unannounced but obvious appeal of a runner leaving early on a caught fly and being thrown out at the base he was returning to.

The 3rd out in this situation is certainly a tag play, not an appeal, and hence, a time play. What is at issue is J/R's muddy ruling that we can't have a 4th out appeal on the play. I don't see why we couldn't, their interp only makes a bit of sense if we are talking about overslide, avoiding tag action in and around a base.

I think grey's interp is what RefMag is saying. R1 stopping, returning, and being tagged "just after R2 crossed the plate" suggests to me he hadn't made a whole hell of a lot of progress toward third, so I don't see it that way.

What I was taught is you can't appeal a missed base by a runner when he is put out AT that base. That is, if R1 is tagged out beyond 2nd base and not in proximity of it (I use the cutout as a guide for "proximity"; some guys I work with and respect say even farther than that), the defense can appeal the missed base for an advantageous apparent fourth out. R1 gains 2nd base when he passes it; once he passes it, the force is removed and if he is subsequently tagged beyond the base, it's a time play. If the tag occurs not in proximity of the base, the defense can appeal the miss for a run-negating force-out. If he's tagged out AT the base (inside the cutout for me) trying to return, no appeal is allowed.

It was explained to me, "He can be out at third, then out at second to supersede it, but he can't be out twice at second. When he's out at second, he's out at second."

The rules citations in the case play say the run does not score because the third out was a force play. How the case play arrived at a force out because a runner was tagged beyond a base he had passed, but not touched, is beyond me unless they rule the tag was a proper appeal, an interpretation with which I cannot abide.

Why would J/R be wrong? A runner who misses a base is still assumed to have touched the base until proper appeal. The runner was retreating back to second and was tagged. A tag in itself is not a proper appeal. The tag should have come with a verbal appeal as the tag was applied. Thus, the defense lost it's right to appeal. The defense erred when it tagged the runner instead of making the proper appeal first.

You cannot have the runner make two outs in this situation.

My position on this is we (umpires) always assume that the base runner has touched the base and remains that way unless legally appealed.

That being the case, in Rita's scenario (albeit Referee Magizine's scenario), R1 is caught off 2nd base and tagged for the 3rd out. The run scores unless legally appealed (advantageous 4th out). The mere placing of the tag is not the appeal because we (umpires) do not call an out for missing a base until the defense appeals. In this case, I want to hear from the defense that they are appealing R1 not touching 2nd base.

The defense does NOT lose its right to any appeals if all action is continuous action of the same play.

In this case, all of the action was after BR hit the ball. It is all part of the same play and tagging R1 does not cause the defense to lose their right to appeal. J/R is wrong if they say the defense does lose the right in this play.

And, for the post about the runner being out at 2B if he is in the vicinity, what a load of crock. If R1 is tagged while off of 2B, he is out. Not at a base, he is just out. He can be tagged while off 2B and then appealed for missing 2B. The tag is while he is off a base, the appeal is having him out at 2B.

You can't have him out at the same base if he missed it twice. For example, on a fly ball, R1 misses 2B going to 3B. Then, he misses it going back to 1B after the ball is caught. Now, the defense can't appeal both of them to get 2 outs. They can only appeal 1 miss of it and have him out 1 time. But, tagging a runner off base is not the same as calling him out at a base. Calling out at a base is a force play. Big difference.

It wouldn't be the first time.

It's (relatively) rare, but it happens.

I concur and so does J/R.

From the manual: "An appeal of a runner's failure to touch or retouch can be upheld if such appeal occurs (a) while the ball is live, and (b) before the next pitch or post-continuous action play...and (c) as the first and only appeal of a certain runner's failure to touch or retouch a certain base, and (d) any appeal throw made after continuous action has ended does not become an overthrow."

In the two examples cited, all relevant conditions requisite to upholding an appeal have clearly been met. J/R contradicts itself in denying the appeals in those two examples.