FED interpretation

[David Emerling]

I just came back from one of our mandatory state association meetings (high school) and an issue was raised and the gentleman running the show said that this was a *new* FED interpretation. I was wondering if anybody in this forum can confirm or verify this.

I can best explain this with an example:

R1, less than 2 outs. Long shot hit out into rightfield. R1 is convinced ball will drop and takes off running. He rounds 2nd when F9 makes a great catch. R1 is more than halfway to 3rd but now puts on the brakes and is attempting to scamper back to 1st, via 2nd. F9 fires the ball to 1st in an attempt to double R1 up. But the ball sails over F3's head and out-of-play. At the time of F9's release, R1 had not yet reached 2nd but was heading back.

The "new" interpretation, supposedly is this:

Normally, R1 could *not* safely get back to 1st since he had already touched 2nd and had not retraced past 2nd before F9's release. But! (Here comes the new interpetation) Since, at the time of F9's release, F1 was *attempting* to get back, he should be allowed to return to 1st. He could then be awarded 3rd without risk of being subject to appeal. Had he *not* been heading back to correct his baserunning error at the time of F9's release, then his fate would be sealed and retouching 1st would do him no good. He would then be subject to an appeal whether he does or does not retouch 1st.

Is this true???

Thanks!