[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

At the risk of being bombarded with all sorts of criticism, I'll say it anyway. I'm also not trying to stir up trouble. First of all, ties do in fact exist whether or not you want to believe it. The ball reaching F3 and the B/R touching the base at the same time (a TIE) are mutually exclusive events meaning one is NOT dependent on the other. Having said that, for an OUT to occur, the ball must reach F3 BEFORE the B/R touches 1B. See 7-4-1f f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base: Not at the same time or not after, but BEFORE. Having said that, if the ball and the B/R reach 1B at the same time, meaning that to the umpire's vision, he cannot perceive any difference between the two, you have a PHYSICAL as opposed to a rule book, tie. The rule book does not address the word tie, so from that perspective the statement is true. TIE in the normal sense of the word for ages has meant a simultaneous arrival of the ball and the B/R at the base. Nobody can argue that, we've all heard it since we were kids. So, if you follow the logic of a tie and combine it with the written rule, a tie does in fact go to the runner because the ball did not arrive at 1B BEFORE the runner touched 1B.

All right guys, have at it. But before you do, be prepared to back up your opinions with fact. Someone else's rule book or OPINION doesn't qualify.

8-2-8...A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it BEFORE he is out.