here we go

[IRISHMAFIA]

However, in this scenario it doesn't make sense to call R2 out on appeal for missing a base he touched.

Why not? There is an entire rule for "Touching bases in legal order" even though that order isn't offered. The rules clearly note that when a succeeding runner scores, preceding runners may not return to the basepath.

A runner cannot return to a missed base or one left too early once they pass the first awarded base. However, as umpiires we do not stop them from returning and touching the bases, but we still honor the appeal even though the runner touched the necessary bases.

Don't get me wrong, this is a strange scenario and I doubt any of us would be able to make it instantaneously without thinking about it, but I doubt it would take two hours

This may be a good question for the NUS.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This may be a good question for the NUS.

If it comes to that, I hope
- a clearly defined, broad based, rule is added and not just an ambiguous case ruling or POE
- it doesn't end up on the test