R3 misses the plate, R2 touches

[jpperez14]

The other day I had a situation where the R3 was coming home to score and right behind him was R2. When R3 crossed the plate he missed it and was walking away. R2 came across and touched the plate. After R2 started towards the dugout R3 came back to retouch the plate. On appeal can i still call R3 out for not touching the plate the first time?

[Rich Ives]

Yes.

7.10(b )

APPROVED RULING: (1) No runner may return to touch a missed base after a

following runner has scored.

[SoCal Lurker]

Changing the scenario: R3 misses and R2 then misses. Is R2 considered to have scored for purposes of 7.10(B), or can R3 come back and touch so long as R2 has not come back to touch?

[johnnyg08]

Changing the scenario: R3 misses and R2 then misses. Is R2 considered to have scored for purposes of 7.10( B), or can R3 come back and touch so long as R2 has not come back to touch?

7.10(b )

APPROVED RULING: (1) No runner may return to touch a missed base after a

following runner has scored.

[UmpJM]

SoCal,

If both miss, I would allow both to correct their infraction as long as the preceding runner did so first.

JM

[Rich Ives]

Hmmmmm - neither touch.

R2 has scored unless appealed so R3 can't retouch legally yet.

You have to appeal R2 first to "unscore" him so R3 can legally retouch - which makes R2 out.

R3 can now retouch and score - if the defense is that dumb.

But R2 cannot now score because he's out.

But if you have R2 retouch first w/o an appeal then R3 cannot score because R2 did.

No matter what, at best only one run can score.

[BretMan]

SoCal,

If both miss, I would allow both to correct their infraction as long as the preceding runner did so first.

JM

Are you sure you don't mean that the succeeding runner would have to touch first (R2 in this case).

[UmpJM]

Bret,

Yes, I'm sure.

The guy who is furthest along the basepath (R3, in this case) has to touch first.

As the other's posted above, if the succeeding/following runner touches, the lead/preceding runner has lost the opportunity to correct his infraction.

JM

[UmpTTS43]

Once R2 passed the plate, he has legally scored until a proper appeal is made. Once R2 scored, R3 cannot legally retouch whether R2 actually touched or not.

[UmpJM]

UmpTT,

I would say it a little differently - he has "apparently" legally scored, as you suggest pending an appeal by the defense.

If they both miss, then R3 comes back and touches, then R2 comes back and touches, I'm going to count both runs and not sustain a subsequent appeal on either.

If the both miss, then R2 comes back and touches, then R3 comes back and touches, I''l sustain the appeal on R3, but R2's run counts - unless the appeal on R3 was the 3rd out of the half-inning.

If neither retouches, they are both subject to appeal.

If R3 retouches and there is no appeal on R2, I would concur that I would sustain the appeal on R3 for the reason you suggest.

JM

[UmpTTS43]

A run scored is a legally scored run until an appeal is made. There is no such thing as an illegally scored run. Once R2 passes the plate and a run is scored, R3 is prohibited from making a legal retouch. The only time I could envision a correction where R3 would be allowed to retouch is if R2 retreated back towards third to correct an actual baserunning error there. Once R2 retreats passed home and is actually correcting a baserunning infraction at third, I could see where the run is "unscored" (still up for debate and interpretation). I would agree that that action would allow R3 to correct his baserunning infraction.