I attended a rules meeting last weekend and this question on the FED test came up........On part one of the NFHS test question #39 states "Following a failed pick-off attempt of a runner at first base, the defense may then appeal a missed base by another runner."

Now, here is my knowledge of the appeal rule. The defense still has the right to appeal a missed base if the offense initiates a play. A runner attempting to steal a base is an excellent example of the offense initiating a play. The defense however, loses the right to appeal a missed base if the pitcher attempts a pick-off move because the defense initiated the play.

Now, assuming that my understanding of the appeal rule is correct, the answer to question #39 is FALSE and the reason is because the defense initiated the play by attempting a pick-off move therefore they lose the right to appeal a missed base. Simple enough, right? Well, here is the reason for my post....

If you look in the new case book on page 55 under 8.2.2 Situation G it states, "Having missed second base, the runner is standing on third. The pitcher, before any pitch, legally attempts to pick off the runner standing on first. The coach then requests time and verbally states that the runner on third missed second base. RULING: This is a legal appeal. The runner is declared out."

The ruling in the case book contradicts the defense losing the right to appeal a missed base if they initiate (pick off attempt) a play. Someone please explain this. Thank you!!

This is one of the known errors in this year's case book (I think there are 4) -- look for a correction from the NFHS soon.

I believe that these are the incorrect scenarios in the case book this year.

Page 36 5.2.2 Situation A Incorrect ruling

Page 55 8.2.2 Situation G Not a legal appeal

Page 69 9.1.1 Situation D Defense must appeal

Page 69 9.1.1 Situation E Defense must appeal

Page 69 9.1.1 Situation I Defense must appeal

Page 69 9.1.1 Situation J Defense must appeal

These were posted by my association. I don't believe that these are the actual FED corrections.

I no longer do Fed, so I really don't care, but didn't we determine last year that the only action by the defense that could remove the possibility of an appeal was a pitch?

I seem to remember that we got an opinion from Fed that even an intentional walk did not cancel the right to appeal. With 2 out, Abel hits a double but missed 1B. Defensive coach is confident BU saw the baserunning error. Coach orders slugger Baker intentionally walked. Coach then appeals Abel missing 1B, and the appeal is upheld.

Greymule,

That situation would have been upheld last year but not this year. If the defense attempts that this year the appeal will be denied per the change in the rule