Appeal or Out

[Welpe]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

"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.

The rule support is 2-20-1: the inning ended with the 3rd out, and no run can score thereafter.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

"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.

Which is why I qualified the statement the way I did.

The rule support is 2-20-1: the inning ended with the 3rd out, and no run can score thereafter.

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 aquiring to the plate to not?

[Rich Ives]

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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?

Yes, but it's not relevant to the situation.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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?

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

When he returns to touch it, the previous acquisition is negated, and the legal touch supersedes it.

Since that happens after the 3rd out in the OP, the run does not score.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

Correct.

When he returns to touch it, the previous acquisition is negated, and the legal touch supersedes it.

Since that happens after the 3rd out in the OP, the run does not score.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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

Citation?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Citation?

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

[SAump]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

The rule book states a runner may not retouch home plate. I'm reading here that the defense must appeal the missed base after a runner illegally retouched a base which he was not supposed to retouch. 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.

Would the defense get two outs if 1) they appeal the missed base, and then 2) they appeal the illegal retouch of the missed base? I would say the illegal retouch allows the umpire to bypass the appeal process and call the runner out. Don't be afraid to call it.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

That used to be the Wendelstedt interpretation (unscore the run at the time of the retouch because the runner has changed the "time" of the time play). I don't know if it still is.