Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 837892)

Interesting case, which might not be as obvious as everyone seems to think. I'm assuming FED rules and that the order of events was as follows and in quick but clear succession:

1. R1 passes HP without touching, thereby acquiring the base subject to appeal.

2. BR put out at 3B for the 3rd out of the inning.

3. R1 returns to HP to rectify his base-running error and touches HP.

If that's what happened, then some umpires would NOT score the run. The rationale would be that, although R1 initially acquired the base prior to the 3rd out and so provisionally scored, he did so illegally and left himself open to appeal. When he returned to touch HP, his touch was legal but occurred after the 3rd out, when no run can score. That touch would thus negate both the possible appeal AND the run. This might have been the PU's reasoning in the OP.

Those who disagree with this interp have 2 unpleasant options if the defense appeals:

A) If they uphold the appeal despite the runner touching HP, then they are ruling that the runner cannot ever rectify his error. No rule support for that: 8.2.1D is a clear case of a runner touching HP and scoring after the ball becomes dead, and 8.2.1E and 8.2.2M specify the windows within which base-running errors must be fixed and appeals must be made. This play is within both windows.

B) If they deny the appeal and score the run, they're saying that the initial acquisition was good enough to score, even though it was not a legal touch of the base. But this seems to give it to the offense both ways: passing the base was good enough to score, but touching the base negates the appeal. No rule support for such a ruling.

I think that the reasoning, but not the rules, would be the same for OBR. Doesn't the (now somewhat outdated) J/R have a case like this?

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 837896)

I thought of that, mbyron but the hangup I have with that interpretation is that I'm not sure what support you have for unscoring a run based upon a runner's action lacking a subsequent appeal.

Originally Posted by BigBlu (Post 837934)

The 3rd out ended the inning (2-20-2), therefore I don't think the runner who missed home can correct his baserunning infraction.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 837954)

"Unscoring" a run? Would you call it that on a play where the defense successfully appealed? Certainly action after the play can in general affect whether a run scores.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 837970)

In OBR a runner cannot correct a mistake if a following runner has scored.

7.10(b ) AR 1

Is there a similar rule in FED?

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 837957)

I fail to see how that would have an effect on what the runner does after the fact. How does a runner touching the plate after the third out change his status from acquiring to the plate to not?

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 837974)

R1 passes HP without touching it. He's treated as acquiring it, even though he hasn't touched it, pending an appeal.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 837977)

A runner cannot return to touch a missed base after the 3rd out.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 838027)

Citation?

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 837977)

Correct.


A runner cannot return to touch a missed base after the 3rd out. The subsequent touch of the plate is meaningless, and the miss can be successfully appealed.

FED 8.2.2.M is not applicable because the runner is correcting his miss before the 3rd out.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 838030)

MLBUM. It extends 4.09(a) (no run can score after the 3rd out) to include touching a missed base.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 838254)

Do you have the section number? I can't find it in my older edition...I don't have the 2010.

Originally Posted by SAump (Post 838253)

The penalty for retouching a base you are not allowed to retouch should be to wipe off that run because of a base running infraction, making the following appeal meaningless.