|
Why is it the most indepth explanation of the rules, including 7.10(a), offered by professionals and historians do not discuss a "tie?" (I offer JEA as example.)
I believe it's simple.
The rulesmakers knew that decisions would be made as to what happend first. The rules were written by them and for them. They had no idea some amateur umpires and coaches would be arguing for a tie. Their explanation of what constituted a tag for an out used simple language. "If the runner doesn't do this before that, he's out." They knew what they meant, as does Evans.
Had they known the rhetorical gymnastics to be exercised years later, maybe they would have worded it differently.
When the rulesmakers wanted detail and wanted to eliminate judgment, they did so. It cannot be construed as an accident that they did not speak of a tie.
We can envision a tie in their choice of phrasing all we want. But it is simply self serving our part.
One thing happens first. Always.
"And, what if the umpire perceives a tie?"
Then he is ill informed.
__________________
GB
|