Is this a correct ruling?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

No problem with an obvious appeal, but I see nothing in the OP that says F3 was doing anything other than touching 1B in frustration.

I can see that, although I'm not sure how you're reading frustration from what he typed.

What matters (and I know you agree) is what is obvious to the umpire on the spot. If it's obvious he's appealing the miss, it's an out. If it's not obvious, the fielder needs to do something to make it obvious. And this is completely judgement on the part of the umpire on the spot.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I can see that, although I'm not sure how you're reading frustration from what he typed.

What matters (and I know you agree) is what is obvious to the umpire on the spot. If it's obvious he's appealing the miss, it's an out. If it's not obvious, the fielder needs to do something to make it obvious. And this is completely judgement on the part of the umpire on the spot.

I played the position. The feeling is awsh!t so you go touch anyhow as part of the self flagellation punishment.

[Justme561]

Thanks for the responses. I too thought that it needed to be more than an 'accidental appeal'.

"My bad" on using the term interference rather than obstruction, I know the difference and still used it incorrectly.