Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Sez Warren: That was my point: If you as umpire perceive a tie between competing events then the rule will actually tell you how to resolve it!
I know that's your point. But that's not mine. Repeat after me...there is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie.
Your "understanding" is not only contrary to that of the historians and rule experes, it furthers the moronic mantra we hear over and over: Hey, Blue, the tie goes to the (fill in the blank.)
The tied goes to no one. THERE IS NO FREAKING TIE.
If there was, JEA sure as hell would have discussed it in 7.10(a). If there was, he sure as hell would discuss it in his school and clinics. If there was, it would have been worded as such by the rulesmakers from Cartwright forward.
|
Now you're trying to sucker me with semantics. You can't stick your beak in the sand and deny that two competing events may ever happen simultaneously because the Official Baseball Rules, PBUC and Jim Evans don't mention it! We all KNOW that it happens. You can't silence the offending moronic mantra by chanting one of your own in response! "
There is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie..." indeed! *BIG grin*
The correct response to your ill-educated inquisitor is not "
There is no tie!" He KNOWS what he saw and will only believe you incompetent if you didn't see it too! No, the correct response is instead "
He didn't beat the play" or "
He wasn't off base when tagged". Rule book terminology and an understanding of how the rules operate to eliminate ties is your best shot at salvation.
Repeat after me "
Hallelujah, Brother. I've seen the Truth and the Truth has set me free!" *HUGE grin*
Cheers