Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
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.
...[snip]...
One thing happens first. Always.
"And, what if the umpire perceives a tie?"
Then he is ill informed.
|
Hmmm... Consider the following play:
0 outs, no runners, batter chops one toward the gap between F5 and F6. F6 makes a desperate dive, gloves the ball and comes up throwing to 1st base. Despite TV camera's, thousands of eyes and a top rate umpire with 20/20 vision, as far as everyone can SEE the ball and the runner arrived simulteously. What "one thing" happened first, and how do you know?
The answer is neither relevant "thing" happened first as far as anyone can prove, but under the subject rule that doesn't matter! The runner had to get there BEFORE the base was tagged. Runner is OUT!
Now by my understanding that was one of your non-existant perceived ties, and yet the rule book had a clinical way for the umpire to deal with that perfectly valid perception.
I don't think the umpire who perceives a tie is ill-informed. That information is every bit as useful and valuable to him in this case as if he had seen the ball clearly arrive first. Perceiving a tie is what tells him to call and signal OUT on the runner under 6.05(j). The runner didn't BEAT the ball.
Now THAT'S simple. *grin*
Cheers