One who acts like Steven Tyler.

Oh yeah, that probably defines ad hominem, too.

OUCH!

FWIW. I'd rather be a troll or phony as I deem it several rungs above hypocrite. It's a rather boring read when most of the posts are of the cyberbulling, guttersniping variety. Placing blame at the feet of one person only encourages the privileged few to feel a sense of immunity.

I don't visit here very often since I'm now the primary caretaker for my elderly parents. I also recently donated a kidney to my younger sister so she can hopefully add a few more quality years to her life. Ad hominemly speaking, just your average day in the life of a phony troll.

"I can't really see what "scrambling back to a (forced) bag has to do with it."

"B is the correct answer as R1 acquired 2B when he slid past it, therefore removing the force at 2B. It can't be an appeal for a missed base as the base was not tagged; F6 tagged R1 not the base. Since R1 acquired 2B and R3 scored before the third out was made, the run counts. "

It is called continuous action by J/R. Most umpires understand this situation very well.:)

I think you might be referring to J/R's concept of 'unrelaxed action'.

Although many umpires embrace the concept of unrelaxed action, from what I understand at least one of the pro schools does not. They teach that a runner can be appealed for a missed base even when he's scrambling back to it, using the strict language of 7.10(b) as justification.

I was merely trying to explain to the obtuse "Larry" what the difference was between appealing a runner scrambling back to a base and appealing a runner with a "clean miss" advancing to the next base. I agree that J/R had already explained that.

For my part, I like the idea of unrelaxed action: IMO, a missed base appeal should occur after playing action has ended, not when a runner is 4 feet away and scrambling to get to the "missed" base. I admit that the rules provide scant support for this opinion: it just seems to me to be better baseball.

In actual play, I probably just wouldn't "hear" an appeal during unrelaxed action. ;)

What if R1 slide past (not touching) the base as F4 bobbled the throw. R1 gets up and tries for third where he's tagged out. Do you now allow an appeal that he missed second? How (or why) is that different from the OP?

(And, to Larry -- this has all been discussed many times before with some taking one side and some the other and no, to my knowledge "official" ruling. J/R, and all other "authoritative opinion" has been wrong before.)

Bob, In your scenario is the base ever tagged by a fielder in possession of the ball? If R1 has slid past 2B without touching it and then went to 3B and 2B was tagged by a fielder and the ball, I would allow an appeal for a missed base.

In Larry1953's scenario, 2B was not tagged by a fielder and the ball.

In both plays, the runner is tagged out during "live action" and then the defense appeals that R1 missed second (it's assumed that the appeal is correctly performed).

To remain obtuse, the play was on a forced runner. The rules say such runner can be put out if either he or the base he was forced to is tagged before he touches said base and no run can score if such force out is the third out.

Many times you see F3 snag a liner while diving toward 1B while R1 is off the bag simply with his lead. 1B then crawls over a foot or two to tag the bag. Technically this is an appeal play and 1B hardly has the time to make a verbal appeal. As part of continuous action with BU being aware of the circumstances, the runner is always called out if he does not make it back in time. It seems to be a similar situation with the OP where the runner is scrambling to get back to 2B and the BU knows he missed the bag.

You can't use dissimliar plays to justify each other, Adios Amigos.

But would you allow an appeal when the action was "relaxed" as was the situation in the J/R case to acknowledge a (forced) fourth out that would by rule negate the run?

An appeal needs to be "clearly intended". That happens when F3 touches first after catching the fly -- it's the only reason he does it, and everyone knows why he's doing it. It doesn't (usually) happen when F4 tags R1 who slid past second -- that looks like a tag of someone who is off the base, and not an appeal.

Understood. But in the J/R case, the defense makes a relaxed play appeal, indicating their appeal intentions on what had just transpired. I suppose the crux of the matter is that J/R interprets that you cannot make a fourth out appeal at the same base the same runner made the third out. I can see the rationale in that.

Yes. It's different (in J/R world) because the appeal occurs during relaxed action in your case but not the OP.

IMO, it's not any feature of the tag of R1 that matters, but the nature of the appeal. I have a problem with granting an appeal during a runner's effort to correct his baserunning error.

I'm ambivalent about this issue, and glad it rarely arises. I've already noted that J/R world is pure interpretation here, and I respect umpires who insist on a stricter interpretation of the letter of 7.10(b). I just think J/R is more in the spirit of the game than such an interpretation.

Here's a bigger problem case for me: tie game, bottom of the last inning, bases loaded, 2 outs. Batter grounds to F6, who flips to F4 for the third out. F4 bobbles the ball as R1 slides past 2B without touching it. After R3 crosses the plate, F4 gathers the ball and tags R1 off the base for the third out. Do we allow an advantageous 4th out appeal in this case? If so, we go to extra innings; if not the game is over!

Depends on ruleset:
In FED, all the defense has to say is R1 missed 2B. Play the next inning.
In OBR, a proper appeal has to be made. Depending if the appeal is made properly or not, we may be going home or playing the next inning.

What if in both cases, that instead of tagging the runner, F6 tags the base while shouting "that's still a force!"? Hard to see how he could suppress the ingrained urge to tag the runner off the bag, but it would seem a proper way to negate the run.