Is the rule myth often quoted by many people an incorrect use of terms? Tie deals with time, safe/out is the ruling.

Taken from eteamz…
THE TIE RULE MYTH
There is no such thing in the world of umpiring. The runner is either out or safe. The umpire must judge out or safe. It is impossible to judge a tie.

The umpire has the tough job of judging the timing of the act and then needs to rule base on the timing. Just as you can say it is impossible to judge a tie, you could also say the same in reverse. Let’s just examine a force out, for now. If you are viewing the runner touching the base and the ball being received, the timing can be so close that you can’t determine if one happened before the other, thus from a timing perception a “tie”. So from a timing perspective, you can have a tie, and that is totally independent from the rule aspect. How to rule if the act happened so close you can not determine if one happened before the other, meaning did the ball or the runner reach the base first

Lets look at the rules(OBR), 6.05 deals with a batter becoming a runner and 7.08 deals with a runner going to 2nd, 3rd, or Home.


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;

Here as it relates to time, the rule states the runner must be tagged before he touches first base. So if they were to happen at the same time, the runner would be safe because the runner was not tagged “before”.


7.08 Any runner is out when_ (e) He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Here it states that the runner must reach the base before the ball, thus a perception of time being a tie, the runner would be out.

So in conculsion, tie goes to runner at first and tie goes to fielders at the other bases.


[Edited by jesmael on Jun 11th, 2005 at 08:21 AM]

I'm sorry
 

There are no ties.

You have done an excellent job in reading, reviewing and writing about a rule.

I have seen no one go into the detail you have.

What you have done is quote the two sections of OBR that actually conflict. We know (according to Jim Evans) there are 237 errors in the OBR. You have quoted one of them.

Some experts have noted that OBR "intentionally" made the 'tie' issue obscure. I don't think so.

Baseball is a game of a finite group of rules used to officiate an infinite number of situations. That is all they are.

You have disected the rule well . . . I am not sure it has much meaning as there is no difference between plays at first and the plays at other bases.

This is a well done study with what, in my opinion, is an incorrect answer.

We know through the studies made by the NBA and National Safety Board that the human eye/brain cannot determine what happens when two actions occur in .04th of a second.

Because of this "logic bridge" that is necessary for the human mind to operate drilling down on a rule this hard maybe a nice academic activity but has little to do with actual umpiring.

Nice post however.

[Edited by Tim C on Jun 11th, 2005 at 10:04 AM]

As Tom Hanks said, there's no tying in baseball.

<i> Originally posted by jesmael </i>

<b> Is the rule myth often quoted by many people an incorrect use of terms? Tie deals with time, safe/out is the ruling.

Taken from eteamz…
THE TIE RULE MYTH
There is no such thing in the world of umpiring. The runner is either out or safe. The umpire must judge out or safe. It is impossible to judge a tie. </b>

The myth was probably started from us when we were kids. We had no coaches, no umpires, NO PARENTS (thank God), etc. We made-up our own rules and one of them was:

If there was a Tie or the closest thing resembling a tie we would give it to the runner. BTW, this is why IMO,the brand of baseball has declined over the years. if the kids do not play organized ball, then they do not play at all but that is cause for another thread altogether.

Ok back to the thread.

Here's how I was taught to rule on the REAL close ones.

if the defense makes a "great" play, and the play is that close reward the defense.

Conversely, if the defense errs and B1 is busting it out of the box, reward the offense.

Other than the aformentioned, you do the best you can.

Pete Booth

Jesmael,

You are operating under a misconception... and I don't mean the timing issue.

In today's society everyone seems to think they are a judge and jury. And that every decision made must be justifiable to anyone that wants to question it; and, my God, do we have a slew of people that want to question everyone's authority. What a total pain in the a$$. What an incredible obstacle to any kind of progress. ...Well let's stop and debate this. Let's see if Mr. Umpire really made the right decision. Let's develop some kind of a computer program that will determine a pitch's location and call it Questek. Let's make everything mathematically provable.

Yes, an umpire tries his best to use timing when making decisions about safe and out. But the real crux of the matter is not timing, that might be justifiable to the CAUSUAL observer. The real answer to whether a runner is safe or not, is whatever the umpire says.

Umpires do their best, but we still make timing mistakes. THE END RESULT (to the runner) IS WHATEVER THE UMPIRE SAYS. If the umpire says "out," then the runner is out. If he says "safe," then the runner is safe. He is not afforded the luxury of stopping to debate each decision. It would be an intractable impedance to the progress of the game if all umpires had to stop and consider some outsider's timing analysis before rendering their final decision.

Same goes for pitches. I don't know a single umpire that calls a precisely rectangular strike zone. Balls and strikes are umpire decisions. To turn every decision into a mathematically justifiable decision is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Perhaps some day it will happen and computers will run the whole show... but then we will have to come up with computized players because the ones we have now are no MORE capable than any umpire (and in most cases I would say LESS capable) to make decisions - like is that pitch going to be in the computerized strike zone and should I swing at it. Where exactly is the bottom of the hollow of the knee? And one fraction of a red thread inside the bottom outside corner of the prescribed zone is technically/justifiably a strike. The computer is going to call that a strike so I guess I better swing. Ooops too late. Is the shortstop gong to field that ball and should I speed up my running so I won't arrive at 1st after the ball - No! runners run full speed every time, or they get yelled at by their coach/manager/owner for being lazy and getting called out.

The real fact of the matter is that umpires like OUTS. And if they have an opportunity to call an "out," they likely will. In my opinion, they better.

That's my final decision... and as of yet, it's not debatable. Heaven forbid the day that it ever is.

Hugs and kisses to your "tie." OUT! ;)

Ties, my friends, go to the UMPIRE!
I've got an out.

Don't reward anyone. Just call the freaking play.

Rich - well said. Can I use that?

"When in doubt- call him out!"

jesmael

The simple truth is this, I am the umpire. If you want me to call you safe, you have to prove to me that you are. If you "tie", as you say, you have proved nothing to me but the fact that you could not beat the throw soon enough to prove that you were better than the defense. I have no recourse but to call you out! Proving there again that a tie goes to the umpire!

How about this: The sound of the ball hitting the glove (catch) is a different sound than the runners foot hitting the base. See it (also listen); process it; call it. Runner is either "out" or "safe" (no ties).

Regarding Pete Booth's comment about rewards:
We as umpires need to have the courage to make the "tough call" (correct call) not the "expected" call. Umpires are there to call the game fair and correct as possible-not to determine "rewards" based on the athletes skills (or lack of skills).

All those who say there are no ties are wrong.

The others that are openminded enough to consider a tie, and with to call the runner out, are also incorrect.

In the first case, please understand that the human senses are limited. Physics, and the ability to decern events far beyond the reach of us mortals is not so limited. So a ball hitting a mitt, and foot hitting bag, can very well happen at the same time, as far us humans are concerned. Admit it, or not, sometimes you just can't tell.

As far as the rules goes, it's up to the defense, or the ball if you will, to beat the runner. Always has been.

I will grant you, on the molecular side, there in no such thing as a tie. For those of you wish to perpetuate the fact the you can, indeed, decern this in every play, well, more power to you.

Me, I'm just a regular guy, with no superhuman powers. So the tie does go to the runner.

It was only a matter of time.

That was great. You first say that all those who say that there are no ties are wrong and then go on to say that really there are no ties. You are a walking contradiction.

Ties go to the umpire, I like that.

If the runner doesn't beat the ball, he is out! IMHO

I subscribe to Pete Booth's school of thought on this issue.

First, there are plays that are so close I cannot discern which occurred first. On those plays, what Carl Childress coined as the "coin-flip calls," I do indeed take into consideration the circumstances of the play. What caused the play to be so close? Was it a batter-runner's extraordinary hustle, combined with an uninspired effort by the defense? Then the runner is safe. Was it a miraculous stab of the ball deep in the hole and then a Jeter-like throw from shallow left field right to F3's glove? Well, hell, in that case, make the execution call.

Apologies to my friend Rich, but "just call the freakin' play" is simplistic and therefore of little use in training umpires how to develop and refine that elusive characteristic all umpires desperately need - good judgment. Umpiring is not rocket science, but it's not as simple as ball/strike fair/foul safe/out, either. Otherwise why would we need all these clinics and manuals and authorities and pro schools and internet boards?

Use Childress's "Benefit of the Doubt" guidelines to resolve those too-close-to-call plays, and you will develop a self-confidence in your calls that was previously lacking, and you will, over time, gain a reputation for being a consistent, reliable umpire who understands the game and calls it the way it's supposed to be called.

OK, I can't resist . . .
 

I went back through my diary of this season.

I think I have discovered a trend in "my" wacker calls.

But let me digress for a second:

In a game this season between the 1st and 2nd place teams in a league I was BU.

Early in the game there was a diving stop by F6 in the hole, he got to his knees and threw a strike across the diamond to a stretching F3.

The play was, in my eyes, very close. The type play that no matter which way you call it the other half the stadium will belly ache.

I gave a very strong, well sold, "OUT!"

Did I award the defense? I guess so since later in the inning when I was standing in "C" F6 said: "hey thanks for rewarding my play . . . I told my left fielder that good umpires reward good defensive play!" I guess he thought the guy was safe at first.

So let's fast forward to the third inning:

The opposite F6 goes way behind second base, snags a grounder up the middle, does the full turn thingy and throws to first where F3 is doing the splits at the stretch and we have another wacker . . .

Of course the first base rat (err, coach) is signalling safe.

I give the BIG "OUT!" from 2SF.

The runner, yep F6 from the OTHER team, says: "Well I guess that evens it up . . . wasn't that a great play!"

So in this specific game I had five "wackers" (coin flips) and I called them ALL "OUT!"

Now back to me diary:

I re-read several entries and have come to this decision about MY (and only my) wackers:

I call an unusual amount of them "OUT!"

I can draw only one of two answers from this documentation:

1) I have always been taught that umpires get in more trouble calling balls and safes than strikes and outs -- ergo -- somewhere along the line I have fallen into calling close plays "OUT".

2) I really got all 37 documented wackers correct.

In short I do reward good defense and I do lean towards not giving the doubt to poor defensive play. Do I "think" about this -- not really -- but I guess what goes on inside my noggin might be different than I thought.

<i> Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser </i>

<b> Don't reward anyone. Just call the freaking play. </b>

Rich I wish you would post the way you umpire.

You cannot tell me that if F6 makes a Jeter like play and the play is that close you are not going to "reward" the defense, conversely, if it's a routine play and B1 is busting it out of the box and F4/F6 takes their "sweet time" and turns a routine play into a "coin flip" play that you are not going to "reward" the offense.

Perhaps you do not use the term "reward" but you have to have some rationale behind your call and IMO it's not as simple as "just call the freaking play"

With all your experience, please try and help the younger umpires by giving them guidelines rather than simply post rhetoric.

Pete Booth

Every safe call extends the game by five minutes.

Bangers at first are generally ALWAYS an out, unless proven otherwise. Half the fans/players are going to groan, anyway.

I don't have time to make artistic evaluations of the fielder's efforts, nor rate the amount of hustle brought forth by the batter (heck ... I probably don't see the batter-runner for most of his run to first). This is not ice skating or gymnastics.

If he's safe, he's safe, if he's out, he's out. Call what you see.

(PS - if you SEE the foot hit the bag at the same time that you HEAR the ball hit the glove, then since the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound, the ball hit the glove before the foot hit the bag. Out.)

Re: OK, I can't resist . . .
 

Tee,

I looked back over my last HS season of notes and I note the same thing.

I know in my mind I'm not trying to reward any kind of play, but I do note that most all of my wackers are OUTS.

but, I've also noted that I've gotten very little complaints on most all of them for some reason, so maybe I'm just pretty good (g)

Thanks
David

Most all of my whackers are outs, also. But I still use the aforementioned "benefit of the doubt" principles in making those calls.

A couple of years ago at a regional MSBL tournament, I was U1 for the championship game. I had about 7 or 8 really close whackers, and called them all outs. At one point, after about the third or fourth out call, a first base coach pleaded with me in frustration, "Blue, what does he have to do to be safe?" My reply was "run faster."

We know that. No one says otherwise. No one proposes a possible call other than "out" or "safe." Nor do we need to get metaphysical about the matter and concern ourselves with the speeds of light and sound. We look and listen. At some point, the "bang-bang" can merge to "BANG." We simply cannot sort out what happened first. Doesn't matter whether the sorting threshhold is .04 seconds, or more, or less. That, like it or not, is a tie.

The real question is, having observed a tie, do you call "out" or "safe?" As jesmael points out, the rules have no problem with the concept of a tie. To the contrary, they provide specific guidance when to call "out" or "safe" no matter what happens. Unfortunately, the burden is different at first base (throw must beat the runner) than at the others (runner must beat the throw). That doesn't make the rules in error. It may be puzzling but it is not unmanageable.

[Edited by ChapJim on Jun 13th, 2005 at 02:32 PM]

My fundamental principle is the same for every force out - all bases. The runner beats the throw or he's out. During a game I am completely unconcerned about any linguistic intricacies of word choices in the rules statements that create an appearance of allowing ties and which base, etc.

Beat the throw (run faster) and you're safe. Perhaps it matches my simple mind. ;)

That's funny!
 

thanks Dave for a laugh! I can just see the look on his face.

Thanks
David

With apologies right back to Dave and to you, I don't subscribe to any of this.

If it is that close I can't discern whether the ball beat the runner or the runner beat the ball (it happens very rarely these days), I call the runner out EVERYTIME regardless of the circumstances.

At a distance of 25 feet the difference between speed of light and speed of sound is not discernable.

Never the less, the statement is true.

Not discernable means the difference between sight and sound leaves you without a clear call.

thank you.