[CO ump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

CO_Ump,

Your argument is both sophomoric and specious.

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

Well said 'the bold part'
The rest of it was ok
I respect Bob's opinion
Evans is still wrong
But I agree with you 100%