So, R1 on second heads for third on a 4-3 ground out. He assumes there are three outs, so he heads towards his dugout at first, and he's between the plate and mound.

Conversely, R1 on second stays put as the batter strikes out. He assumes there are three outs, so he heads towards his dugout at first, and he's between first base and the mound.

Aren't both of these considered abandonment?

This play is also correct.

There's a difference between an out made during "unrelaxed action" and the order of appeals during "relaxed action."

Sure. But neither have anything to do with the case play you posted.

Perhaps I referenced the wrong case play. I used a 2012 version of the book. :o

And my question to Bob had nothing to do with the OP.

I don't know what you mean by "correct." My question was: Does the run score?

You are the one that made the comparison. You said, "are you sure about that", with "that" being his answer to a question related to the OP. Then you compared that with a missed base appeal situation.

I'm pointing out that your comparison is not applicable.

Nice... you asked that, he answered, then you deleted your question... when he deleted his answer, you ask again?

Nice.

the run does NOT score in your play.

I'm sure it was just a timing issue -- he deleted his first post before my response was posted.

Right - the appeal is a force because the runner was forced at the time the base was missed, despite the B/R having been put out before the appeal was made. In jTheUmp's example, the only way the order of appeals matters is if the force is (retroactively) removed by an appeal.

Is there an official interp. for this? I can't find it in the rule book or the MLBUM.

According to J/R the order of appeals does not matter if the runner was forced at the time the base was missed.

If a consecutive runner has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner, and he is forced at the moment he misses his advance base, an appeal of that base is always a force out. EG: bases loaded, one out. The batter triples. R1 missed second and the batter-runner missed first. First, the defense successfully appeals against the batter-runner, then R1. The appeal of the batter-runner does not negate the fact that R1 was forced when he missed the base. R1's appeal out (third out) is also a force out; R2 and R3's runs are negated.

I agree order of appeals doesn't matter.

As for the OP, is there no similar Fed ruling as OBR:

(b) When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

Which occurred in the OP.

According to 2008 BRD (Section 12), Fed has it in 2003 interp #4, and 2006 interps #12 and #13. I seem to recall it being more recent thatn that as well. I don't have time to look it up tonight.

For OBR it has "email from PBUC staff" (but the same ruling)

Thanks. 2011 BRD says the same thing.

rampro - What edition of J/R do you have? Mine is 2008, and the play you referenced is not is there (or I can't find it). I'm wondering if they pulled it.

Wendelstedt School manual as of 2010 says that order doesn't matter if force existed at time of miss. BRD reference is from a 2000 email. I think in FED the order does matter.