For my newbie brain: In the case where R1 actually touches third, then heads back to second, the force play is on and the run does not score - right? Also, say in the case where R1 touches third, coach tells him to return, and he breaks for second but a tag is made on him, I believe the run would still not score correct?

R1 starts at 1B. If he reaches 3B, retreating toward 2B does not reinstate any force.

I guess I'm reading too much into 7.08(e)? "However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated..."

My J/R is from 2004, and a nearly similar play is on page 84, the last page of Section 10 Appeals. In the 2004 edition, J/R allow the appeal for the 4th out. So apparently dash has a newer edition of J/R which has a changed ruling.

I haven't seen anything in the MLBUM about the subject. But consider the actual rule: (From 7.10(d))
Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.

The rule taken as written says that R1 can not be appealed for a 4th out, because he is the runner who made the 3rd out, and is therefore not "another" runner.

So my question is: Can anyone quote an authority (other than an old J/R interp) which says that once R1 has been tagged for the third out, he can be appealed for a 4th out because he missed 2nd ?

3B isn't the next base. 2B is, for R1.

A runner can only be forced to the next base beyond the one he occupies at the time of the pitch. Beyond that, no force.

Dave - that's an interesting point about "another" runner from 7.10 (d). I couldn't find anything about that in the MLBUM, and none of the examples of successful appeals entails an advantageous 4th out against a runner who is already out.

However, J/R specifically addresses it in Chapter 6 -- Runner or Batter-Runner Out, Not Out (citing the same rule!):

"After any given pitch, and before the next pitch, a runner can be out only once, although an advantageous fourth out against a runner already out can supersede the earlier out. [7.10d]"

My J/R is the Twelfth Edition (2008). I wonder what caused them to change the ruling and deny the appeal. Maybe it needs to be un-changed.

The word "another" is, I think, one of the 234 errors identified by Evans in OBR.

If defense tags R1 and says nothing as they run off I have a run scored. If they tag him and then say he missed 2nd base I have a missed base appeal and no run scored.

According to J/R, that would not be a valid appeal because the action is unrelaxed.

"An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire"

Given the rulebook language quoted above and not having a copy of JR, how is the runner returning to second any different then the runner returning on a tag up or missing home plate. They are both unrelaxed actions and both appealable errors. How does JR justify this . Or am I missing something.

I'm trying to understand it too. And I found another problem (at least for me).

Under the general definition of an appeal that applies to a runner (missed base or retouch appeals), J/R states it must be obvious, i.e, by voice and/or unmistakable act (7.10 Comment).

J/R defines action as relaxed or unrelaxed, depending on whether the runner being appealed is attempting to reach a base and the ball is at or approaching the base.

Retouch appeals can be made when the action is relaxed or unrelaxed, and the appeal must be obvious. However, if the action is unrelaxed, the appeal "is only obvious when the runner has clearly failed to retouch, i.e., the runner is at or returning from a considerable distance away from his TOP base when a fly ball is caught [sic]." (Emphasis added).

An attempt to "double up" a runner who had left the base on the hit (or pitch) and was trying to beat the throw back would always be an obvious retouch appeal.

But consider R3, one out, fly ball to the outfield. R3 leaves the base just before the ball is first touched (caught). Both the umpire and F5 see R3 leave early. R3 stumbles on his way home and tries to return to 3rd. F5 calls for the ball and stretches for the throw, believing he is making a retouch appeal. The umpire knows F5 is trying to appeal, but according to J/R, it is not an appeal because R3 was not a "considerable distance" from the base when the ball was caught. If it's not an appeal, it's a tag play, so if R3 gets back to the base before he is tagged, he is safe. Any subsequent appeal (if J/R even allows it) is denied because R3 corrected his error before the appeal.

In my opinion, that's not how it should be called on the field. What if R3 had continued home and was safe on a close play? The defense could appeal his failure to retouch 3rd, and the appeal would be upheld because the action is now relaxed. It seems to me that strictly following J/R would result in different rulings on the same appeal.

The rule already says that the appeal must be obvious to the umpire. The stuff about a considerable distance away from the TOP base is unnecessary, and confounds the interpretation IMO.

Getting back to your (and my) problem, J/R says "A missed base appeal of first (rounded), second or third occurs only when the action is relaxed" (and there is no exception for an obvious appeal) so if the runner is scrambling back to the base, he must be tagged to be out. Furthermore, (from the two relevant examples), if the runner is tagged, it's still a time play at the plate, so even if R1 is out, he's out on the tag and not by appeal.

Maybe J/R denies subsequent appeals in those two examples because R1 made it back to the base and therefore corrected his error before the appeal - it's not clear.

So I think your kind of saying, sort of, well not you directly, that if the runner is going back to second for OBVIOUSLY missing the base and the fielder is tagging him for OBVIOUSLY missing the base then we should call him out and allow the run. Assuming it was scored before the tag.

Then if the coach comes out for an explaination we should tell him "Don't go there coach , we don't have enough time to explain it because I haven't quite figured it out myself yet." Although it may seem as though it was "an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire", it was only our imagination. And that is a non-protestable call.

OK I get it, I think, well maybe, sort of.

And I was just beginning to completely understand the NCAA DH rule, Not.

Another neighborhood play
 

Baseball may no longer allow the fielder to overstep a base to obtain an out in the classic sense of the ole neighborhood play, but it still allows a runner to obtain a base by overstepping it. The issue here is whether or not a base has actually been obtained when a runner passes by a base left untouched. Difficulties are compounded by the number of outs, advantageous fourth outs which may occur and different league interpretations.

A classic example occurs when R1 overslides 2B and a run scores before a tag occurs {See PBUC/MLB case plays}. One league allows a valid defensive appeal and another one doesn't. An alert fielder may be expected to receive the ball and then give chase after a baserunning infraction. Another example occurs when R3 overruns HP and the catcher makes a verbal appeal before throwing the ball in an attempt to retire a runner at another base. However, after a fly ball is caught, a retouch appeal allows the defensive to either a touch of base or tag of runner and will not require a tag of runner w/in proximity of the base. It isn't a force play, but touching the base is recognized as a valid appeal play.

See above posts.

[QUOTE=dash_riprock;639724]The rule already says that the appeal must be obvious to the umpire.QUOTE]

Let's see. The runner leaves early on the fly ball or line drive, even if just by an eyelash. It's the umpire's job to watch that. The fielder takes a snap throw back to the base. Pretty obvious to me that's what the defense is doing. "Considerable distance from the base" does not even enter the scenario - and that phrase is a judgement situation anyway, so it's not only not relevant, it's pretty silly.

JJ