[UmpJM]

CO_Ump,

Your argument is both sophomoric and specious.

It is typically heard from those who have just read the rule book for the first time (carefully) and notice wording that suggests, "Wow! The tie DOES go to the runner! Says so right here! Aren't I clever for noticing what no one else ever did!" Then they read some more, and find another part that says the tie DOESN'T go to the runner in other cases, at other bases. Hmmm.... And then, the Sophists who bring up this unfounded argument don't even bother to address the REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION of, "Does a tie go to the runner during a "time" play, and, if so, which one?!?"

So, even by this "literalist" interpretation, a "tie" does NOT (always) go to the runner.

Now, both Einstein (Relativity: The General and Special Theory (especially the "Special" part) ) and Hegel (Phenomenology of Mind (check the chapter on "Absolute Knowledge" - it's a hoot) ) suggest, rather convincingly I might add, that though it is possible for two events to occur simultaneously at two different points in space, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to objectively perceive it - accurately. Einstein from a Physics point of view, Hegel from a "limits of the process of human perception" point of view. They are both a lot smarter than I, and I believe them.

A basic and false premise that provides the logical foundation of your argument is that the rules are "properly" applied by a "literal" interpretation. Just as those whose "literal" interpretation of the Bible suggests that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, your "literal" interpretation of the rules, while perhaps "intellectually amusing" has no relationship to the real world. (Yes, that was a BLATANT attempt to get this thread "locked" by introducing "religion" into the discussion. Sorry Garth. I had the "under".)

It is both impossible and impractical to actually officiate a game solely by a strictly "literal" interpretation of the text of the rules. A literal read of the rules reveals so many inconsistencies, contradictions, and ambiguities, that it does not provide the necessary information required to officiate a game.

Yours is a "literary analysis". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't have anything to do with officiating a game of baseball. And, even in the realm of literary analysis, you are espousing the "intentional fallacy". A principle of literary criticism which suggests (again, convincingly) that it is truly impossible to "know" the author's intent, and that a work really only "means" what it comes to mean through the interpretations of those who read it and apply the principles.

The two people I have personally met who seem to know the most about what the rules of baseball really MEAN are Jim Evans and Bob Jenkins. They both say "there are no ties, he's safe or he's out".

So, by my reckoning, Einstein, Hegel, Evans, and Jenkins all say "there are no ties". That's good enough for me. In the real world.

Anybody got a lock handy?

JM