Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CO ump
How do you know what was intended when that rule was written with those words? Are you saying the rules makers were too stupid to think there might be a tie?
|
Stupid? No. They understood what they meant. The runner beats the throw or the throw beats the runner. Had they wanted a third option do you think they were too stupid to include it?
Quote:
That's just plain ignorant. The word "tie" is a word for a reason. "ties" happen, and in this case the rules account for it.
The rules account for it so why throw a hissyfit if someone mentions it?
|
No, the rules do not account for it. The rules do not mention it. Ties were invented by fans and rats. After all this time, if a tie was to be considered it would have been added to the rule book
The one authority on the rules who has researched the rules and their intent for over 30 years, who has had access to early notes and writings of the rulesmakes and who, with MLB's blessings has proveded interpretations for MLB umpires is wrong and you are right? My goodness we are full of ourselves aren't we?
Quote:
|
I've never suggested that any umpire use the word "tie" during game management, but to deny that a tie could occur shows a real lack of intelligence.
|
To insist one does occur show a real lack of understanding of physics and the rules.
Quote:
|
Ties are accounted for by using very simple logic.
|
No. "Ties are accounted for by umpires who don't understand the proper interpretation of the rules.
Quote:
|
If the sitch is "There's a tie at 2nd, what's the call?" The simple answer is OUT
|
Should I ever hear that sentence spoken aloud, my thought would be "must be a coach."
Obviously there's no big deal for an amateur umpire who knows the rule interpretations better than Jim Evans.