[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Attachment 648034
Now, as I read the rules (Rule 5.09(d) for all of those keeping score at home), if the appeal is successful and it constitutes the third out, then no succeeding runner can score. Which means if the runner on second missed the bag, then none of the runs would have counted. If the runner on first missed the bag, then the runner on second would have scored but nobody after him. That would also mean that, if the appeal had been successful, Kemp wouldn't have scored on the throwing error. I think I'm pretty certain of that, but if someone has a different interpretation of the rule, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

But here's an interesting twist: if the Pirates' third baseman had tried to make a play on Kemp as he was attempting to score on the errant throw, then the Pirates couldn't have lodged an appeal. That's because a team has to make an appeal before the next pitch/play. In a sense, it was lucky for Pittsburgh that the throw was so lousy - if the third baseman had been able to track down the ball in time to make a throw to the plate, they would have forfeited the chance to appeal the runs that had scored on the triple.

I'm not so sure about the bold. It's my opinion that the appeal was lost by the errant throw and ensuing score for the same reason you mentioned in your interesting twist. I could be wrong.