Tennessee vs. Michigan

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

Is anyone besides me weary of even the broadcasters NOT knowing rules? I just heard the announcer say that in the event of a "tie" the rule says it goes to the runner!! What the heck!!!!!!!

On the replay, as soon as I heard one start to say, "It looks like a tie at the bag, so..." I muted the TV quickly and told my wife, "you know what they are going to say next!"

Whenever there's a close/controversial play, it is humorous to see/hear these ex-jock commentators' old umpire prejudices come to the fore

[LMan]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Yeah but aren't many play by play announcers and most color comentators former players?

Does that mean they know the rules any more comprehensively than the average fan?

[IRISHMAFIA]

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but speaking ASA, the tie does go to the runner. (8.7.C).

I will always proclaim that the tie goes to the umpire , but I would be wrong.

[bigwes68]

I was in the press box, standing right behind Pam Ward and Cheri Kempf. But I could hardly hear what they were saying. If I had actually heard them break out the "tie goes to runner" myth, I was ready to slip them a note to tell them that, once again, there is no such rule.

Overall, though, I thought they did a good job. I just wish they could have seen fit to have Jennie Finch do commentary for that game...that would have been NICE.

I was also ticked about them cutting away to Barry Bonds at the crucial moment of the game. And, for the most part, I thought the umpiring was decent. The umpire's strike zone in Game 1 on Saturday was one of the best I have seen all year. The guy in Game 2 wasn't so great, the one in Game 3 was some better. From my vantage point, I couldn't see what happened on the overthrow, but UT's coach did come out to complain about it; however, nothing was done.

I also didn't understand the strike call on Durant. It was obvious she pulled the bat back; if she had actually offered at the ball, she probably could have at least made contact with the ball and kept from hanging Hammond out to dry. But at least it all turned out well.

I'm ready for the new park next year. Cramming 11 people into a press box that's built for 6 is not easy.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by LMan

Does that mean they know the rules any more comprehensively than the average fan?

No, my point was that in many sports former players turn to broadcasting. But someone who calls 150+ baseball games on TV in a year is going to get better at doing it, going to get better at knowing the rules etc. How many softball games do Pam and Sheri broadcast a year? Not that announcers in major league sports don’t say things that make officials in those sports cringe, I think it just doesn’t happen as often after they have spent a lot of time behind the mic and in front of the camera. Just like with us on the field!

I’d rather have TV coverage with announcers who would not make good umpires, than TV coverage with umpires who do would not make good announcers. Or no TV at all! How long has softball been covered on TV? Not many years. Let’s hope it keeps growing.

P.S. Of course the tie goes to the umpire Mike, that's why they pay us!

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by bigwes68

I also didn't understand the strike call on Durant. It was obvious she pulled the bat back; if she had actually offered at the ball, she probably could have at least made contact with the ball and kept from hanging Hammond out to dry. But at least it all turned out well.

Well, sure, to us with five looks and multiple camera angles it looked like she pulled it back. Who amoug us has never had to have a conversation with a coach over whether or not the batter offered at the ball? Our brother behind the plate saw something he judged to be offering at the ball, he called a strike. I am not going to argue. Strike two, play ball.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but speaking ASA, the tie does go to the runner. (8.7.C).

I will always proclaim that the tie goes to the umpire , but I would be wrong.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have NEVER seen a tie . . .

Even though this isn't an ASA game and ASA rules do not apply, let's look at what Mike says. I'm looking at my trusty ASA rule book and 8.7.C says they are out if the fielder touches the base while in possession of the ball, tags the base or the runner BEFORE the runner reaches the base (my paraphrase). It's basically the same type of verbage you will find in the NF or NCAA rule book. Even though this isn't speaking of the BR I see nothing about a tie going to the runner. Am I overlooking something?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

I don't know about anyone else, but I have NEVER seen a tie . . .

Even though this isn't an ASA game and ASA rules do not apply, let's look at what Mike says. I'm looking at my trusty ASA rule book and 8.7.C says they are out if the fielder touches the base while in possession of the ball, tags the base or the runner BEFORE the runner reaches the base (my paraphrase). It's basically the same type of verbage you will find in the NF or NCAA rule book. Even though this isn't speaking of the BR I see nothing about a tie going to the runner. Am I overlooking something?

Okay, look at it this way. If the runner touched the base and the ball entered the defenders glove at the same time, then it is obvious the defense did not touch the base with the ball in possession BEFORE the runner touched the base.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

... BEFORE the runner touched the base.

And 8-2-C says the same for a batter runner, they are out if they are put out PRIOR to reaching first base.

My personal philosphy: I listen for the pop of the ball and watch the runner's foot... if I hear the ball at the exact same time I see the foot, then the ball must have gotten there 3/10,000,000ths of a second sooner since sound travels slower then light.

That's assuming I'm about 10 feet away when I make the call. If I'm in "C", I'll adjust as needed.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Switch to math concept for a moment. Either x > y, or x = y, or x < y. Technically, there are 3 possibilities; runner came first, out came first, or there was an exact tie. By the actual wording of the rules, the runner is not required to beat the out, the out is required to beat the runner. Therefore, tie must go to the runner.

By the next extension of science, what is the actual possibility of an exact tie in time and space, when time can be broken into an infinitesimally small component? My argument isn't that ties don't go to the runner; I submit that I have never seen one; in fact, at some point, the human eye is incapable of judging anything that infinitesimally small, even with slow motion replay, at times.

Bottom line is my judgment, which I trust to be sharper in the vasy majority of cases than the coaches or fans (who see with their hearts, not just their eyes). If the ball beat the runner, I have an out; if the ball didn't beat the runner, I have a safe. I refuse to discuss ties (I know I'm not wearing one!!). All I will state in response is if the ball did or didn't beat the runner.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Switch to math concept for a moment. Either x > y, or x = y, or x < y. Technically, there are 3 possibilities; runner came first, out came first, or there was an exact tie. By the actual wording of the rules, the runner is not required to beat the out, the out is required to beat the runner. Therefore, tie must go to the runner.

By the next extension of science, what is the actual possibility of an exact tie in time and space, when time can be broken into an infinitesimally small component? My argument isn't that ties don't go to the runner; I submit that I have never seen one; in fact, at some point, the human eye is incapable of judging anything that infinitesimally small, even with slow motion replay, at times.

Bottom line is my judgment, which I trust to be sharper in the vasy majority of cases than the coaches or fans (who see with their hearts, not just their eyes). If the ball beat the runner, I have an out; if the ball didn't beat the runner, I have a safe. I refuse to discuss ties (I know I'm not wearing one!!). All I will state in response is if the ball did or didn't beat the runner.

And for that, I'll give you a HUGE round of applause! I don't think it could have been said any better.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Switch to math concept for a moment. Either x > y, or x = y, or x < y. Technically, there are 3 possibilities; runner came first, out came first, or there was an exact tie. By the actual wording of the rules, the runner is not required to beat the out, the out is required to beat the runner. Therefore, tie must go to the runner.

By the next extension of science, what is the actual possibility of an exact tie in time and space, when time can be broken into an infinitesimally small component?

Possibility? Same as the other two, one in three.

Probability? Not enough bandwidth to even think about it.

[CecilOne]

The point is that it does not matter if the ball/fielder and runner arrived at the exact same infinitesimal measure of time; but just that no one could tell which came first. A "tie" is when they appear to be simultaneous to the human eye/ear and that is when the ball/fielder did not beat the runner and the call is safe.

[fastpitch]

On the 'suicide' bunt in the top of the 6th(?), was it not a 1-1 count and Durant pulled back on the bunt causing R1 to get picked off at third? That would have made it 2-1, but the next pitch was a strike and retired the side.[/quote]

I saw that too. It looked like the Michigan coach came out and talked the hp umpire into a strike and the announcers missed that there was even a conversation about it. I decided to go for a swim and taped the game with the DVR. I enjoyed getting to watch the 7th inning even after BB home run but how stupid can you get showing the final score first.

[Blu_IN]

This isn't just a softball issue. I see equally bad rule knowledge amongst baseball announcers. Announcers must not feel that knowing the rules is important enough or else they would actually open the rule book and read it.

Perhaps the problem is that we, being umpires ourselves, expect too much from announcers. Perhaps it is better that they spend their time reading up on the next team they will be announcing so they can tell us the players' names correctly, their stats, and how they have be doing as of late.

Blu