noumpere

Depends on the code. And, depends on whether this is while the batter is hitting the ball (assumed above) or while he is taking his stance (in which case the entire foot needs to be ion the box -- and the lines are part of the box)

But once the defense then starts a tag attempt, the runner needs to run toward a base -- that will happen about .2 seconds after he starts to run to the outfield during a run-down. "Coach, we're not going to discuss hypotheticals. I've answered your question about this play, so let's get back to the game."

Reference? 3.3.1AAA seems to say the opposite to me

That, of course, is one way to look at it. No one here has the power to change the rule, even if we agreed with your opinion on this. All we can do is to try to tell you why the rule is the way it is, and enforce it the way it's meant (under the current rules / interps) to be enforced. The members of the OBR rules committee are listed in the front of the rule book. You could try writing them.

The only way to do this is to have your right eye focus on the feet and the left eye focus / track the bat and the middle eye focus / track the ball. If you can't do that, then something has to give. It's usually the feet.

Yes, but the accepted / expected practice is to stop it if you can.

Like most mechanics changes, this one changed because of some high-profile controversy. I forget all the details,. but in some playoff game 15 or so years ago, there was a K that might or might not have hit the ground. Someone ran (or didn't), someone played (or didn't) or someone made an error -- and so the mechanics got changed so both sides knew (at least in theory) what the call was so they could properly react. Honestly, I think it's a good change -- we signal catch or not on other batted and thrown balls (when it's not obvious) -- why wouldn't we do so on a pitch?

That's not what I said. Sometimes PU sees a swing. That's a strike. Sometimes, PU doesn't see a swing. If BU sees a swing (upon appeal) that's also a strike. Lots of rules seem unfair.

all correct except the above, depending a bit on what you mean by "reached second" -- if R1 reached second but retreated back past second toward first before the ball goes out of play, then he can correct his error.. If R1 is on or beyond second at the time the ball goes out of play (or after), he can not correct his error. IF he goes back to retouch first, you let him, but if the defense appeals he is out.

For OBR and NCAA, this is only for purposes of granting a subsequent appeal. FED has, I believe, defined it such that your statement is true. For the OP, under FED rules: 2.29.6 SITUATION B: Following a base hit by B2, the visiting team wishes to appeal R1 missing third base as he advanced to home. After all playing action is over, the pitcher throws the ball to the third baseman while claiming that R1 missed the base. F5 is not watching and the throw goes into a dead-ball area. RULING: After B2 has been awarded two bases, the visiting team may now verbally appeal R1's missed

I seem to recall a case play or interp where FED still allows an appeal after an appeal is thrown out of play. I am also away from my books

1) I would not have him do this. The most would be an *IMMEDIATE* "yes he did -- no, I mean no he didn't" call (like a "safe-out" brain fart call on the bases) all on his own. 2) Of course he can. You know this.

When the PU is tracking the ball, he might *miss* the batter swinging. Something that happened, but was missed can be appealed. If the PU saw the batter swing, he didn't miss the action.

What? You might re-think that answer; the OP asked about a fly ball, not a "foul tip"

Can any fielder catch a fly ball off his chest (or any other body part)? Why would it be different for F2?