Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Warren:
In none of the rules referenced do the words "perceived tie" exist. The perception is solely in the mind of the reader. Not one pro instructor or rules interpreter I have spoken with acknowledges that the rules are "intended" to award a so-called "tie" to anyone.
As you know the rule book is filled with inconsistency and error. Add to that, room for reader inference.
Since I do not subscribe to officiating.com I haven't read your piece on the matter, but from a practical, everyday, non-mental masturbation point of view, I'll go with the pro schools....there is no tie. There are only decisions to be made.
|
Since our readers are, by and large, human beings with separate individual perceptions of the same event, isn't it conceivable that there are observers who may look at a particular event and be unable to distinguish and make a decision based on the physical evidence alone?
The rules do not mention "ties" because the rules are written in black and white. As far as possible, those who made the rules have tried to cover all of the possibilities. But officials see events in living color, and that admits the possibility that two competing actions may occur so closely together that they cannot be separated or distinguished by an observer based on physical factors alone. That is why I said "
perceived ties".
The fact remains that the rule language precludes ties by giving the umpire a factual basis for his decision, even when he cannot perceive a distinction between the two competing events.
- The runner must touch the base BEFORE being put out - if he touches it at the same time he is out [OBR 7.01].
- The runner is only out when tagged while OFF the base - if he makes it back into contact at the same time as he is tagged then he is safe [OBR 7.08(c)].
These terms alone clearly dictate that ties are impossible
by rule and
in reality, but
not in the viewer's perception. That was my point. Sure that perception is only in the eye of the beholder, but when that beholder is the umpire it's still important that he deals with that perception consistently and with the full support of the rules he administers.
Now are you seriously going to suggest that pointing out what the rules actually say is an exercise in "mental masturbation"? I thought proper interpretation and application of the rules was part of our job as officials? In order to make "decisions" you need to have sufficient information to separate the competing events. That's what an umpiring DECISION is, after all - the separation of competing events by selecting the pre-eminent event based on the rules of the game.
Cheers,