Rules Myths Part 1

[Al]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I think you've missed the fairly simple logic. The stated rule says BR is out IF tag is BEFORE BRs touch of the base. A tie does not meet this simple criteria therefore it is not an out.




The rule makers had no need to mention "tie" The simple logic of Tag needing to be before the touch or as 7.08e says runner must touch before tag.
In ether case the "tie" is accounted for as safe or out, no do overs as you accused 56 of promoting.

Thanks, Co ump, for another good and pointed post. ...Al

[Rags 11]

Some think this horse isn't dead yet

AR

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by SAump

No one disputes the "before rule" being discussed above. As JM hinted at, there is another rule(s) in the book that is in direct conflict with your statement above. I am surprised you fail to mention it, as self appointed rulebook interpreter. You may know a bit about rule 7 and the runner, but why do you fail to play defense?

I'm afraid you're wrong. Fed rules do not not conflict on this issue.

I'm referring to Fed 2005 book, the rule hasn't changed but I'm sure the reference is within one or two letters and easily found.

8-4-1f is referring to BR only and states that the tag or touch must beat the BR's touch of first.
Therefore by rule, a tie at first is Safe because the tag did not beat the touch, which is exactly what 56 was referring.

8-4-2j is referring to runners (Not BR) and states that the runner must beat the tag.
Therefore by rule, a tie at any base (except BR at first) is an out because runner did not beat the tag.
So "Tie goes to the runner" is a true statement by rule regarding BR at first, but not a true statement regarding all other runners.
I don't know if the difference between BR and other runners is purposeful but it's undoubtedly there.

Now if you say ties aren't possible or that you ignore 8-4-1f then those are different issues. But to argue with 56's original assertion is foolishness.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I'm afraid you're wrong. Fed rules do not not conflict on this issue.

I'm referring to Fed 2005 book, the rule hasn't changed but I'm sure the reference is within one or two letters and easily found.

8-4-1f is referring to BR only and states that the tag or touch must beat the BR's touch of first.
Therefore by rule, a tie at first is Safe because the tag did not beat the touch, which is exactly what 56 was referring.

8-4-2j is referring to runners (Not BR) and states that the runner must beat the tag.
Therefore by rule, a tie at any base (except BR at first) is an out because runner did not beat the tag.
So "Tie goes to the runner" is a true statement by rule regarding BR at first, but not a true statement regarding all other runners.
I don't know if the difference between BR and other runners is purposeful but it's undoubtedly there.

Now if you say ties aren't possible or that you ignore 8-4-1f then those are different issues. But to argue with 56's original assertion is foolishness.

No. The troll's assertion is foolishness. This is why Evans always asks inquiring umpires if they are discussing day games or night games.

You are reading too much into the rules. In neither case is a tie mentioned or intended. It is one or the other, the runner beat the throw or the throw beat the runner. No third option exists. As Evans has said, "One thing happens before the other, always. It is your job to determine which one it was. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be umpiring."

Ties are mentioned only by whining rats or umpires practicing mental masturbation.

Sometimes you have to understand the game.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

No. The troll's assertion is foolishness. This is why Evans always asks inquiring umpires if they are discussing day games or night games.

You are reading too much into the rules. In neither case is a tie mentioned or intended.

How do you know what was intended when that rule was written with those words? Are you saying the rules makers were too stupid to think there might be a tie?

Originally Posted by GarthB

It is one or the other, the runner beat the throw or the throw beat the runner. No third option exists.

That's just plain ignorant. The word "tie" is a word for a reason. "ties" happen, and in this case the rules account for it.
The rules account for it so why throw a hissyfit if someone mentions it?

Originally Posted by GarthB

As Evans has said, "One thing happens before the other, always. It is your job to determine which one it was. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be umpiring."

Evans is wrong! And I can determine before, after or tie and in each of the three options I know exactly how to apply the rules because the rules are very clear for each of the THREE options.
If the rule isn't clear on third option please explain.

Originally Posted by GarthB

Ties are mentioned only by whining rats or umpires practicing mental masturbation.

I've never suggested that any umpire use the word "tie" during game management, but to deny that a tie could occur shows a real lack of intelligence.

Originally Posted by GarthB

Sometimes you have to understand the game.

I love the way you always throw the last line insult in there.

I'm afraid you are the one that is failing to understand.

You're hung up on the fact that the rules don't mention "tie"
What purpose would there be in mentioning "tie" in the rules?

Ties are accounted for by using very simple logic.

I know you understand the logic.
For an out
Tag must beat BR's touch at first. IF it was a tie then the tag did not beat BR's touch, therefore SAFE.
So yes, you use judgement "Did the tag beat the touch?" yes or no it's one or the other.
So if it's a tie then the tag did not beat the touch, therefore safe.

What I'm not advocating is that on a banger at 1st you even think about "tie"
You detemine did the tag beat the touch or not and make your call.
On that I have to believe we agree.
In a theoretcal discussion where a sitch is presented that says "there's a tie at first, what's the call?"
Then instead of hurling insults the simple answer is SAFE.

If the sitch is "There's a tie at 2nd, what's the call?" The simple answer is OUT

What's the big deal?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

At the risk of being bombarded with all sorts of criticism, I'll say it anyway. I'm also not trying to stir up trouble. First of all, ties do in fact exist whether or not you want to believe it. The ball reaching F3 and the B/R touching the base at the same time (a TIE) are mutually exclusive events meaning one is NOT dependent on the other. Having said that, for an OUT to occur, the ball must reach F3 BEFORE the B/R touches 1B. See 7-4-1f f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base: Not at the same time or not after, but BEFORE. Having said that, if the ball and the B/R reach 1B at the same time, meaning that to the umpire's vision, he cannot perceive any difference between the two, you have a PHYSICAL as opposed to a rule book, tie. The rule book does not address the word tie, so from that perspective the statement is true. TIE in the normal sense of the word for ages has meant a simultaneous arrival of the ball and the B/R at the base. Nobody can argue that, we've all heard it since we were kids. So, if you follow the logic of a tie and combine it with the written rule, a tie does in fact go to the runner because the ball did not arrive at 1B BEFORE the runner touched 1B.

All right guys, have at it. But before you do, be prepared to back up your opinions with fact. Someone else's rule book or OPINION doesn't qualify.

8-2-8...A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it BEFORE he is out.

[BigSteve56]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

8-2-8...A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it BEFORE he is out.

Put the two together. One defines the out (7-4-1F), the fielder touching the base with the ball, or tagging the runner BEFORE the runner tags the base, right? 8-2-8 Defines WHEN the runner has ACQUIRED THE BASE; if he touches it before he is out. It doesn't say he has acquired it if he touches the base before the fielder has touched the base or him. It says BEFORE HE IS OUT If the runner and the ball reach at the "same" time, the runner is NOT OUT because of 7-4-1f. BECAUSE HE IS NOT OUT, HE HAS ACQUIRED THE BASE BEFORE HE IS OUT AND THEREFORE HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8-2-8.

Everyone has their own philosophy, and I respect that. I was trying to point out that the way the rule is written, a tie is theoritically possible and that 7-4-1f governs the OUT.

I'm not some self indulgent troll looking to put anybody in their place. I'm trying to address a statement I believe to be false and I backed it up with the written rule, and I got challenged by dash_riprock with another rule. I took that rule along with the original rule, put them together and showed in a logical way that 8-2-8 is not a way to refute 7-4-1f.

I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion. Just read my argument and tell me if you think me logic is wrong. I suspect that there will be many of you who will read it and agree that my logic is correct. Whether or not you are willing to state that here, I don't know. I would like to think that at least one of you would.

After re-reading my OP, I admit I came on too strong, and I apologize for that. I didn't personally attack anyone, although some of you seem intent on attacking me. I can handle it.

[dash_riprock]

A perceived tie is always an out. The umpire will be watching the base to determine the time of touch by the runner, and listening for the ball hitting the glove to determine the time of catch by the fielder. Light travels much faster than sound, and will arrive at the umpire's eyes before the sound gets to his ears. Therefore, on a perceived tie, the catch occurred first.

[BigSteve56]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

A perceived tie is always an out. The umpire will be watching the base to determine the time of touch by the runner, and listening for the ball hitting the glove to determine the time of catch by the fielder. Light travels much faster than sound, and will arrive at the umpire's eyes before the sound gets to his ears. Therefore, on a perceived tie, the catch occurred first.

You don't have to tell me that light is much faster that sound, I'm an engineer. Your statement doesn't answer the question. I didn't mention sight or sound. When you are 10 feet away looking at a play and can see the base touch and the catch by F3 with wind and noise, you can't perceive a time difference in your head of less than 1/100th of a second, which is about how fast sound will travel 10 feet, provided you are at sea level.

I asked you to fault my logic. It doesn't make any difference what you assume. If there is a "tie", similar to a "dead heat" in a horse race where they cannot determine a winner with available scientific technology, is my logic wrong? That's all I asked. You didn't address it. Obviously you want to justify your position. Fine.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

A perceived tie is always an out. The umpire will be watching the base to determine the time of touch by the runner, and listening for the ball hitting the glove to determine the time of catch by the fielder. Light travels much faster than sound, and will arrive at the umpire's eyes before the sound gets to his ears. Therefore, on a perceived tie, the catch occurred first.

TC has adressed concerns with human percerption.
Speed of light and sound have no bearing in a tie.
But indispensible when determining the easy call, safe or out.

The umpire watches the base because it is easier to gauge the touch with our eyes, than to gauge with our ears. When that moment occurs, it easier to make a distinction on whether or not the ball has already been caught and vice-versa. It would be more difficult to watch the catch and then look for the touch of the foot on the base. This has also been verified on the baseball diamond. It is not news. Although the ears provide additional info to the brain, no umpire I know relies on his ears to verify a catch. Again, already address by TC.

[BigSteve56]

Originally Posted by SAump

Source of BigSteve56's faulty logic.

Go back to my response to dash riprock then tell me how my logic is wrong.
Don't cite 8-2-8 either because it's not a valid argument against 8-4-1f. The two rules go hand in hand. 8-2-8 SUPPORTS 8-4-1f. Excuse me, I inadvertantly referenced 7-4-1f.

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base:

ART. 8... A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out.

Unless the ball beats the runner, the runner is NOT OUT. If he is NOT OUT, he has ACQUIRED the base. A "tie", "dead heat", "simultaneous" or any other word you want to use indicates that there is NO OUT because the defense has not fulfilled the obligation of getting he ball to the base BEFORE the runner has touched the base.

Put the two rules together and tell me how my logic is wrong, using the context of the rule book. Don't just say it's wrong, cite the rules as they are written.

The only thing I've stated is that there can be a tie, a statistical time frame, from which an umpire cannot determine with any certainty which event occurred first -the runner or the ball reaching the base, and that any determination is a "guess" as Tim C alluded to. I agree 100%. I've never questioned that. My whole position is based on accepting the idea that theoretically there can be a "tie", and if so, 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT. If 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT, then he has ACQUIRED THE BASE under 8-2-8.

SAump says 8-2-8 is the source of my faulty logic. You made the statement - tell me how, given what I have stated above within the context of the rules book, that my logic is wrong.

There are only 3 statements that come into this scenario -

1. A tie is possible, within the statistical time frame as stated.
2. 8-4-1f
3. 8-2-8

Given that, prove to me that a runner in a "tie" situation is in fact out.

Again, don't cite what some umpire told you, or what you heard in a discussion. We are dealing with a 100% straight observance of the rule as it is written.

If you can't do it, then either admit it and suck up a little pride, or just don't respond. I've put a challenge out there and I'll takes my lumps if anyone can prove me wrong. What I don't deserve is a bunch of troll comments. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion. I've taken a position I believe in, not out of pride, arrogance, or any other false pretense, but because I believe it to be the right position. I've opened myself up to ridicule from all of you.

Umpires are supposed to have integrity. Think about it before you attack.

[SAump]

In your own words, like you tied me up by the ankles too!

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

Go back to my response to dash riprock then tell me how my logic is wrong. Don't cite 8-2-8 either because it's not a valid argument against 8-4-1f. The two rules go hand in hand. 8-2-8 SUPPORTS 8-4-1f. Excuse me, I inadvertantly referenced 7-4-1f.

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base:

ART. 8... A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out.

Unless the ball beats the runner, the runner is NOT OUT. If he is NOT OUT, he has ACQUIRED the base. A "tie", "dead heat", "simultaneous" or any other word you want to use indicates that there is NO OUT because the defense has not fulfilled the obligation of getting he ball to the base BEFORE the runner has touched the base.

Put the two rules together and tell me how my logic is wrong, using the context of the rule book. Don't just say it's wrong, cite the rules as they are written.

The only thing I've stated is that there can be a tie, a statistical time frame, from which an umpire cannot determine with any certainty which event occurred first -the runner or the ball reaching the base, and that any determination is a "guess" as Tim C alluded to. I agree 100%. I've never questioned that. My whole position is based on accepting the idea that theoretically there can be a "tie", and if so, 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT. If 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT, then he has ACQUIRED THE BASE under 8-2-8.

SAump says 8-2-8 is the source of my faulty logic. You made the statement - tell me how, given what I have stated above within the context of the rules book, that my logic is wrong.

There are only 3 statements that come into this scenario -

1. A tie is possible, within the statistical time frame as stated.
2. 8-4-1f
3. 8-2-8

Given that, prove to me that a runner in a "tie" situation is in fact out.

Again, don't cite what some umpire told you, or what you heard in a discussion. We are dealing with a 100% straight observance of the rule as it is written.
If you can't do it, then either admit it and suck up a little pride, or just don't respond. I've put a challenge out there and I'll takes my lumps if anyone can prove me wrong. What I don't deserve is a bunch of troll comments. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion. I've taken a position I believe in, not out of pride, arrogance, or any other false pretense, but because I believe it to be the right position. I've opened myself up to ridicule from all of you.

Umpires are supposed to have integrity. Think about it before you attack.

Is there an F across my forehead or something?
What part of before and after didn't you understand? Ties!
Would you like me to repeat the part you left out? Ties!
WTHAYTA? Ties! Thank God for the ability to cut and paste.

No one said ties do not exist. They said the "tie goes to the runner myth" does not exists. Is there room left for judgement?
As you stated, the ball did not arrive before the runner. So did the ball arrive after the runner? You stated there was no tie in the rulebook. Please explain why you incorrectly ruled that the runner was safe every single time? The best you can hope for is "I can't decide, it was a tie, so bat again." That doesn't even pass for minority opinion.

You fail to allow room for judgment in your hypothetical sitch. If umpire judgment were allowed, a tie would always result in a safe OR an out. Ruling every tie goes to the runner would be about as impartial as the unwritten myth. Fortunately, I know the difference between discrimination and favoritism. Obviously, you don't discriminate against the defense. Great. You favor the offense. Great. I am glad your doing such a great job on the diamond. Lucky for me, everyone else I know allows for umpire judgment to be utilized on the real diamond.

BTW, coincidence, first play of the game today a real whacker. Both B/R and 1B came down on the bag a nearly the same time. I ruled in favor of the defense. Later in the same ball game, a real whacker. Both B/R and 1B came down on the bag a exactly the same time. I wish you.tube had a video of the expression that flashed across my face. After I blew out a huge breath and felt my eyes roll up the back of my head, I simply held a wimpy fist up to say the B/r was ruled out. I looked at the base coach in disbelief of what I may have witnessed for I was only hoping one had beaten the other, and told him that play was closer than the other. I didn't hear any complaints and he agreed with how hard my decision must have been.

Now, I encourage you to give the tie to the baserunner a test for the rest of the season and get back to us when you meet a coach who doesn't bye your conclusion. I would love to read the ejection report. On the other hand, I hear t-ball coaches are pretty forgiving. So track the score of every ballgame and report back when you have one with less than ten runs/game. I would love to hear your thoughts about the defensive effort for that game. Ta-ta.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by SAump

In your own words, like you tied me up by the ankles too!

Now we're talking about bondage. WTF is this forum coming to?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[bluezebra]

Read the Rule Books a little closer.

"If the batter has reasonable time to vacate the batter’s box, he/she must do so or risk interference being called." FALSE. Unless a runner is attempting to score, the batter's box is a 'safe haven', unless the batter makes an overt move and interferes with the catcher.

"The pitch hitting the ground means nothing." FALSE. It means that it can never be a called strike.

"The runner is only ruled out for being out of the baseline when he/she is trying to avoid being tagged." FALSE. It's not the baseline that matters, it's the runner's BASE PATH.

Bob

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

Umpires are supposed to have integrity. Think about it before you attack.