tie goes to the runner?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Cubbies87
The rules of baseball are written in order to regulate the play of the game. They are the law. Nothing is above the law. The rules of baseball state that the runner must beat the ball to the bag, and not vice-versa.

Rule 6.05(j) says:

6.05 A batter is out when_
(j) After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base;

Note the word "before." It doesn't say "before or at the same time as;" it just says "before." If you read that rule carefully, and literally, then you have to say that this particular rule would indicate that a tie does indeed go to the runner. The rule says he's out if he's tagged *before* he touches first base. So, if he's tagged *at the same time he touches first base,* he's not out, because he hasn't met the requirement of the rule. He's safe.

On the other hand, if you read the corresponding rule in Rule 7 regarding the runner, you'll see phrasing that gives the tie to the defense. The truth is, the *literal* rules say different things in different places. Moreover, it's highly unlikely that the original rulemakers were even thinking about "what about a tie" when they used the wording they used in the various rules. They were almost surely thinking instead that there are no ties, therefore there's no need for a rule to address ties.

This is always an amusing debate between the literalists, who strike me as just a tad anal-retentive (the rules are the rules!) and simplistic (if he's out he's out and if he's safe he's safe!) about it, and the pragmatists, who see value in developing a set of guidelines to help them be more consistent and more in tune with the spirit of the game as well as the perceptions and expectations of the game participants, in deciding those razor-thin, too-close-to-call, coin-flip plays.

The "benefit of the doubt" guidelines previously mentioned are indeed endorsed by respected umpires at every level, including the college and pro ranks. Carl Childress has written extensively on the concept, fully endorsing it. In fact, it was one of his articles addressing the subject that helped me take my own game to a higher level a few years ago.

Developing and using a set of benefit-of-the-doubt guidelines is a useful tool for practical umpiring. Try it, you'll like it.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

It should NEVER be a factor in an official's decision-making. If a play is so close that you have doubt, then the facts say the runner did NOT beat the play. That is the criterion the pro's use. That is what the rules require.

Warren I have to disagree with you on this. IMO and watching baseball for a long time, the merits of the play do matter.

If you have a chance check out ESPN's classics when they show some of the greatest plays ever made. There was Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, Willie Mays and many many more.

Just like basketball where the "benefit of doubt" goes to the established player (ie; Michael Jordan) in drawing a foul call so does it hold true in baseball, especially when a "KNOWN" player is involved.

If a play is that close and F6 went deep in the hole made a back hand play, IMO reward the defense.

Remember we are talking about CLOSE plays not those in which we are "SURE" about.

Also, watch a game in which F1 has a no hitter in the late innings, most PRO umpires will give benefit of doubt to F1 on the REALLY close ones.

I realize the PRO umpire will probably not admit it, but indeed uses the "benefit of doubt" theory in actual practice. I know I do and I think it is in a way "an expected call", meaning the players, fans etc want you to reward GREAT PLAYS again when it is too close to call or to use a Horse Race Term - Photo Finish.

Therefore, in order to truly answer the question we have to define close calls from CLOSE CALLS if you know what I mean. There are plenty of close calls that in our minds we know if the runer was safe or out, but there are those "coin flip" type calls in which IMO the "benefit of doubt" theory is a good tool to use.

Pete Booth

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Warren I have to disagree with you on this. IMO and watching baseball for a long time, the merits of the play do matter.

All due respect, Pete, if the umpire is watching the game play, so he can decide what bias to add when he gets a close call, then he is NOT focusing on making the right call in the first place.

Male human beings are only truly capable of focusing on one thing at a time. That is a scientific and physiological fact that stems from our pre-historical role as hunters. That is why the pro schools spend so much time on concentration drills - to help prospective umpires rediscover and hone that ability to focus, and not be distracted by the game play. They can't do both and still get it right.

The few times that I have really regretted my calls on the diamond, I can trace my error back to a lack of concentration. I have become caught up in the game play and lost focus on the job at hand. It can happen to any of us. Don't go looking to create that situation by using game action as part of your decision-making.

Originally posted by PeteBooth
I realize the PRO umpire will probably not admit it, but indeed uses the "benefit of doubt" theory in actual practice. I know I do and I think it is in a way "an expected call", meaning the players, fans etc want you to reward GREAT PLAYS again when it is too close to call or to use a Horse Race Term - Photo Finish.

I have no doubt that pro umpires do use "benefit of doubt", but they don't base their decisions for that on game play. They base them on an understanding of the rules, their interpretations and the physics of the game.

I hear what you're saying about name players reaping the reward of their reputation - Ozzie Smith, Greg Maddux, etc - but that should be an entirely involuntary reaction on the part of the umpire, if it occurs at all. The problem is if Greg Maddux pitches and Ken Griffey Jnr leaves it as close but off the edge, who gets the benefit of the doubt? If Ozzie Smith fields the slow roller way early and Willie Mays still turns it into a tight play at 1st, who gets the benefit of the doubt then?

No, Pete, you would do better to concentrate on the job of deciding what really happened at the plate or the base, and calling the result accordingly. Umpires are not TV announcers and color men, so leave the enthusiasm over great game play to them!

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
This is always an amusing debate between the literalists, who strike me as just a tad anal-retentive (the rules are the rules!) and simplistic (if he's out he's out and if he's safe he's safe!) about it, and the pragmatists, who see value in developing a set of guidelines to help them be more consistent and more in tune with the spirit of the game as well as the perceptions and expectations of the game participants, in deciding those razor-thin, too-close-to-call, coin-flip plays.

I would add a 3rd group to the debate, Dave; namely the romantics. They tend to view themselves as a great force for Truth, Justice and the Fair Baseball way on the diamond. They want to "reward" great game play and "punish" poor game play because that's what is Fair and Just in their eyes. They can never accept that the game is deliberately biased at times, usually to make it a more interesting contest. They are also committed to their belief that the umpire is really some kind of superhero on-field dispenser of Justice and Fairness, instead of simply being an impartial arbiter of what actually happened.

Maybe someone should write a book on what cues umpires may reasonably use when giving the "benefit of the doubt" on close plays. As I understand it "making the expected call", an acknowledged Childressian concept, is about calling pragmatically based on facts. It is not about romantically "rewarding" or "punishing" what either team "deserved" to have happen based on any perceived great or poor gameplay.

Cheers

[David B]

The biggest problem I see with a close play, (tie) is that most of the time the young umpires are afraid to make the out call.

I don't have the statistics but I remember reading somewhere that in a study done most of the calls that were considered missed on the close play at 1B was when the umpire made the safe call.

The lastest example was LLWS on the play at first that U1 called safe but replays showed a great play by the infielder beat the runner.

Now this was not a young umpire I would guess but he made the easy call instead of the out (hard call) IMO.

I've used the term "if in doubt call him out" before in training young umpires in jest but I do believe there's some merit in that theory for the "young umpire" since most of the time they are afraid to make the out call.

Once they are confident in themselves and are willing to make the call "as they see it" instead of what they might have predicted or assumed was going to happen they usually are more willing to make the right call.

As we see in MLB though there are no guarantees.

Thanks
DAvid

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Skip Sturgeon
If a play at base is too close to call, does a tie go to the runner? This seems to be the case in our league(6-8yr.olds) , but I can't imagine it is a written rule. We had several "coaches"(Dads) debate this the other night.Who's right?

Blaine Gallant once quoted a study that showed that 90% of all whackers too close to call were outs when viewed in slow motion replay.

In point of fact, the human brain is unable to distinquish between events that occur less than .04 seconds apart. The US military determined this in a study with young male soldiers. I wonder what a study would have shown with old fat guys with glasses.

In .04 second, an NCAA player moves about 15 inches. Thus, the human brain is unable to see ties. We may think that we see them, but it is an illusion. A few years ago on McGriffs, I wrote a long piece in which I did some advanced math concerning the speed of light and the speed of sound. In combination, those two things play a role in whackers at first base. Cranking in the .04 second factor as well, I concluded that that 75% of whackers where a tie is percieve by an umpire, were, in fact, outs. This tracks closely with Blaine's information.

Therefore, "when in doubt, call an out," is back up by both physics and empirical evidence. It's the best we've got for now.

Peter

[GarthB]

(Except at All Star Games, of course)


Peter is the mathemtician and probably can come up with the exact odds, but I remember reading in my college physics class that the odds of two nearby events ocurring at exactly, nay, precisely the same point in time are astronomically against it.

Although we may perceive such with our human limitations, in physical fact of life, there is no tie at first. Something happenef first. It is the umpire's job, using all information available to him, to decide what that was.

Which would you rather say to an informed coach:

1. Tie goes to the runner.
2. Runner beat the ball.

[Edited by GarthB on Sep 25th, 2003 at 04:24 PM]

[theumpire17]

There are no ties there either out or safe which ever way you saw it. If its that close that you really dont know go with your gut and SELL it....Ump17

[Edited by theumpire17 on Sep 24th, 2003 at 11:53 PM]

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Not to speak for Garth...

There likely is some Heisenberg corollary similar to what you have suggested...

But in simpler math, we only have two answers: Safe and Out. That means we must interpret the actions into one of those two categories.

Most umpires watch the play at first and, (At least, this is the way I would explain it.) if they are certain that the runner was there first, they call safe. Otherwise there is only one other choice (and it is not tie, or nice play by the shortstop, or gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger on ...). IT IS OUT!

Personally, I think umpires should want to call strikes and outs. Unless I have certainty that a pitch was not a strike or that a play was not an out, I make the call that keeps the game progressing; I call strikes and I call outs.

The batter-runner must prove to me that he beat the throw before I will call him safe.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Sep 25th, 2003 at 04:12 PM]

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
They can never accept that the game is deliberately biased at times, usually to make it a more interesting contest. They are also committed to their belief that the umpire is really some kind of superhero on-field dispenser of Justice and Fairness, instead of simply being an impartial arbiter of what actually happened.

I don't know any umpires, in real life or on the Internet, who have a problem with the "biases" inherent in the rules. Each team gets the same number of turns on offense and defense. If the rules are "biased" towards the offense or defense, the fact that each team gets the same number of turns makes it "fair." Your Don Quixotes are made of straw.

Warren Willson
Maybe someone should write a book on what cues umpires may reasonably use when giving the "benefit of the doubt" on close plays. As I understand it "making the expected call", an acknowledged Childressian concept, is about calling pragmatically based on facts. It is not about romantically "rewarding" or "punishing" what either team "deserved" to have happen based on any perceived great or poor gameplay.

Well, I think you understand the Childressian concept somewhat incorrectly, as this passage from his article "TEACHING JUDGMENT: THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" illustrates:

In my April, 1988, “Doing It” column for Referee magazine, I wrote about optional umpire signals. Here’s one: The ball beats the runner to the base (the runner is going to be out), but the fielder is lazy and doesn’t bend his back. The runner slides and the glove touches the
runner somewhere above the waist. I recommended that the umpire scream “Safe!” and then slap himself the tag was applied: “You will be forgiven [I wrote] if you exaggerate a little when you show where the tag was made.”

We’re looking to be consistent. We’re also looking to decide which team executes better on any given play. We all know that the better team gets the better calls, even though we may not admit that in public. A man I know in the Netherlands hates that idea. He claims it’s an American
invention. Well, so is baseball.

(emphasis my own)

As I said previously, the Benefit of the Doubt principle I've described - which explicitly includes evaluating which sided "earned" the call by superior play - is a concept that is taught by "high-level" clinicians. It is a concept I personally have had good success with, and the feedback I get from the "real-world" umpires I have helped train is virtually 100% positive.

I just checked the free Childress library at eumpire.com to see if the article I referenced is posted there. It's not, which is a shame, because it is, in my opinion, one of his best.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I don't know any umpires, in real life or on the Internet, who have a problem with the "biases" inherent in the rules. Each team gets the same number of turns on offense and defense. If the rules are "biased" towards the offense or defense, the fact that each team gets the same number of turns makes it "fair." Your Don Quixotes are made of straw.

Really? Then why is it, do you suppose, that a number of posters have wanted to declare, in this very thread, that "ties go to the runner"? Many simply can't accept that little Johnny isn't "entitled" to be called safe when it was a "dead heat"! We both know that "high level" clinicians and "real world" umpires, especially professional umpires, tend to ignore the literal reading of OBR 6.05(j) in favor of a more pragmatic understanding that OBR 7.01 applies at all bases, including 1st.

Please don't take my previous reply to your post as some sort of personal rebuff. I was actually agreeing with your initial assessment and simply wanted to add a 3rd, clearly-defined group; clearly-defined to me, at least.

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I think you understand the Childressian concept somewhat incorrectly
...[snip]...
As I said previously, the Benefit of the Doubt principle I've described - which explicitly includes evaluating which sided "earned" the call by superior play - is a concept that is taught by "high-level" clinicians. It is a concept I personally have had good success with, and the feedback I get from the "real-world" umpires I have helped train is virtually 100% positive.

Well maybe you and I will have to A2D on what Carl really meant. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. I just don't see Childress deciding close calls on any reward/punishment basis. Calls can't be "earned" by superior play any more than they can be "lost" by poor play - that's undue bias - but superior play or poor play can help the umpire decide what actually happened, on the balance of probability.

The clue, for me, was in Carl's use of "which team executes better on any given play". I don't read that as being a "reward" for making a great grab at shortstop and turning an easy single into a razor's edge play. His example that you cited made it even clearer for me. The lazy tag high on the body near the base is "Safe" because the runner's foot probably made the bag ahead of the high tag DESPITE the ball beating the runner to the play. That's the same as the fielder who lays down the early tag ahead of a sliding runner. A cloud of dust may have prevented the umpire from physically seeing any tag, but the glove went down well before the runner reached the base so on the balance of probability the runner was likely out. That's not a "reward". Instead it's the most likely result of what actually happened.

I view both examples as the pragmatic recognition of the facts, not a romantic "punishment" for the defensive player failing to bend over early and make the tag at the ankle, or a "reward" for the defense getting the ball to the base early.

I'm sure that we are probably thinking about the same concept but may be getting caught up in the language difference. I just don't believe that terms like "deserved" and "earned" have any part in umpires deciding calls. If a player executes a tag well then certainly the benefit of any doubt should go to that player. That's not the same as "rewarding" the defense for making a great play, in the broader sense. You may see my distinction as a case of hair-splitting, but I see it as a fundamental difference in umpire attitude.

Cheers

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Really? Then why is it, do you suppose, that a number of posters have wanted to declare, in this very thread, that "ties go to the runner"?

Because they're looking for a guideline, a basis, a rationale for deciding the coin flip calls, and they think they've found it in a literal interpretation of the rules. The only ones who have defended the "tie goes to the runner" concept in this thread have cited the rules, not an appeal to fairness, as their support. Moreover, they're no more "romantics" than the ones who say "when in doubt, call them out!" "Tie goes to the runner" and "when in doubt, call them out" are flip sides of the same coin.

You may see my distinction as a case of hair-splitting, but I see it as a fundamental difference in umpire attitude.

You're right, I do see the semantic distinction you're making as hair-splitting. I think Carl's meaning couldn't be clearer, and it supports the concept several of us have described, that superior play is a valid criterion for deciding a close call. Describing that as "rewarding the better play" is an accurate description of the concept.


[Edited by Dave Hensley on Sep 27th, 2003 at 09:03 AM]

[David B]

to the idea that the play can help determine the call.

I see it all the time in MLB.

Now, I think the problem comes with guys who only umpire t-ball or LL or something of that effect.

The pace of play is much much slower than with the kids who shave and they have lots of time to make a judgement on the play.

Maybe that is the group that is trying to say there might be a tie in baseball.

I know when I first started I used to think the same thing, but in the 25 years since I've learned a whole lot about the "game of baseall" and there is a lot of merit to the idea that a great play deserves the call if its a coin toss.

I know in the last five years i have prescribed more and more to that theory and it has made umpiring much more pleasant.

As a matter of fact its been a long time since I've had a coach even question a call on a close play even if say its a steal and the ball obviously beats the runner and he might miss the tag etc., If the throw beats the runner by five steps no one if going to complain he missed the tag.

Now in LL maybe its different because so many times its obvious that there was no tag. But since I only call guys that shave now I don't have to worry about that.

Everyone knows he was out and that's the call.

No complaints, batter up.

Dave quoted Carl above and I'm pretty sure if he and i were makeing the call, we would both call it the same way.

I've said it before and i still believe that its very hard to miss a call at 1B if you're in position and paying attention.

thanks
David