Appeal a turn toward second.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I agree that this isn't an appeal that meets the definition by ASA, but the rules (every version I know of) call it an appeal nonetheless. Here's definitions used:
NCAA: A play OR a rule violation on which the umpire does not make a ruling ...
NFHS: A play on which an umpire does not make a ruling ....
ASA (Current): A play on a rule violation on which an umpire may not make a decision unless requested.
ASA (2005 and before): An appeal play is a play on which an umpire may not make a decision ....

We all know that the ASA rulebook came first, and was the basis for the others. ASA many years ago decided to include this situation as an appeal (and I believe baseball does as well), and the others maintained that, as it did meet the definition. It is tangential only in that it is the only situation that isn't a rule violation called an appeal; in my mind, the only reason to consider it an appeal is that the players don't know in advance if the runner will be ruled in jeopardy, and we aren't to tell them until asked. So, they are asking for a ruling (by making the live ball appeal as a tag), and only then do we rule if in jeopardy or still protected as simply overrunning.

In the 2006 ASA rulebook, this is an undocumented change; apparently an editorial decision. "They" removed language stating when the appeal could no longer be made from the definition section, as it was correctly located in the rule section 8-7.F-I Effect, and removed the redundancy of repeating the defined term in the definition. At the same time, they added the words "on a rule violation" without that being a rule change; somone thought that made it clearer. And it would have, if this case wasn't an exception, an appeal that isn't on a violation.

So, the discrepancy is one of ASA's editorial committee's making, not an intentional rule. Just unfortunate wordsmithing, it would appear. Personally, I also don't like "may not" versus "does not" that the others use. I don't want to have to rule on a protest claiming that an umpire that did inadvertantly (and obviously incorrectly) let on about a violation put the offense in jeopardy, and have to disallow a valid appeal. "Does not" if done is a mistake; "may not" if done is a violation of the rule.