For instance, on Saturday, the Cleveland Indians appealed that Tigers baserunner Alex Avila violated OBR Rule 7.02 by failing to touch first, second, third and home bases in order en route to scoring a run. With two out and one on, baserunner R2 Avila attempted to score from second base after Indians F6 Asdrubal Cabrera overthrew third base during an attempted fielder's choice. After the play's conclusion, the Indians appealed to third base umpire Wally Bell that Avila never touched third base, a ruling affirmed as Avila was declared out on appeal for failing to touch all bases pursuant to Rules 7.02 and 7.10(b) [failure to touch each base in order]. The ruling negated the run Avila had attempted to score during the previous play.
 |
| This table of possible outcomes for each sequence demonstrates that the order in which an appeal is executed is of tantamount importance. |
Similarly of note, Rule 7.10 appeals must be made prior to the next pitch or any play or attempted play, while Rule 7.10 appeals themselves are not to be be interpreted as plays. Appeals are made while the ball is live.
In essense, if a runner misses third base, as in the video above, a Rule 7.10 appeal must be executed prior to the next pitch, as in the video above. Similarly, the Rule 7.10 appeal must be made before an ensuing play or attempted play.
In the video above, new baserunner R2 Quintin Berry tried to induce an attempted play by running towards third base and providing the Indians the opportunity at an easy out if they were to tag Berry while he was off his base. Had the Indians made a play or attempted play on Berry (e.g., by tagging him out) prior to completing their appeal play (e.g., by tagging third base), they would have lost their chance to appeal Avila's miss of third base.
Instead, as the video shows, third baseman Lonnie Chisenhall tagged third base pursuant to the procedure for a Rule 7.10 appeal prior to tagging Berry, who was still off his base. Because Chisenhall tagged third base and executed his appeal prior to making a play on Berry, the appeal was eligible for review and affirmation by umpire Bell. Had Chisenhall reversed the order and tagged Berry before stepping on third base, the appeal would not have been eligible for review, Bell would not have been able to declare Avila out for missing third base, and Avila's run would have stood.
Other 7.10 appeals include leaving early on a fly ball & losing overrun protection at first base, as seen here... Also listed is the rarely-seen "fourth out" play which, in tandem with a time play, occurred during a Major League contest from 2009:
Rule 7.10(a), 7/16/11: Beckham is ruled out on appeal for leaving third base before a fly ball is caught
Rule 7.10(b), 9/5/12: The Mets appeal R1 Adron Chambers did not retouch second base on his way back to first base during a caught fly ball - applies both to advancing and returning to a base
Rule 7.10(b), 5/3/12: The Diamondbacks appeal B1 Bryce Harper failed to touch first base enroute to 2nd
Rule 7.10(b), 4/17/10: Choo ruled out for missing first base - Had this been the third out of the inning, Choo's RBI would be negated and the run would not score because Choo did not reach first base [Rule 4.09(a)]
Rule 7.10(c), 9/10/12: Colvin out for failing to return to first base after an attempt at advancement [Rule 7.08(j)]
Rule 7.10(d), 8/2/09: Schneider tags home plate after Montero fails to touch it during his slide
Fourth Out, 4/12/09: With one out and two on, Dodgers batter Randy Wolf lines into a double play, R2 Juan Pierre tagged off second base. However, R3 Andre Ethier continues running to and through home plate during the play, touching home before Pierre is tagged for the third out. The Diamondbacks had a chance to invoke the "fourth out" and appeal that Ethier had failed to tag up at third base, which would have made Ethier, not Pierre, the third out. Instead, the D-Backs leave the field after the third out on Pierre, failing to appeal (or notice) Ethier's violation of Rule 7.10(a) [tagging up on a caught fly ball]. Because Arizona does not appeal, Ethier's run stands and his violation of this rule is disregarded.
