Appeal or Out

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

That's kind of what I thought. And the appeal likely wouldn't have been timely as he touched the base before any appeal could have been made.

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 Doesn't the (now somewhat outdated) J/R have a case like this?