Rules Myths Part 1

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

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?

Yes.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by Tim C

....studies that showed that the human brain can not determine the order of activities if they occur inside a time frame of .04 of a second. The brain simply cannot determine what happens in what order.
Regards,

I've seen this written several times, but the statement certainly isn't true in a general sense, and not always true in a baseball sense.

Here's a specific non-baseball instance: A spectator at a top-fuel drag race, if positioned in the grandstands along the finish line extended, can easily see which car is first to the line, even if the two cars are separated by just one foot or less. So he can correctly order the times at which the two cars crossed the line with a resolution of about 2 or 3 milliseconds. Two circumstances are key to this: the spectator is using only one sense (vision), and the events are not isolated: both events as well as their timing are predictable from the path and velocities of the cars. Contast that to the NBA where the timing of a shot is predictable, but shot clock buzzer isn't.

A second instance: Humans can discern the direction from which sounds have emanated. The primary mechanism depends on the difference in arrival time at our two ears. We routinely accurately judge not only the order of arrival, but the magnitude of the difference, at 1 millisecond or better. In fact, in a quiet room, for a sound source nearly equidistant to the two ears, we can order the arrival times within a few tens of microseconds! Once again, only one sense is employed (hearing). It is also important that the sounds reaching our two ears have nearly identical waveforms. On the other hand, surprise is not a problem.

In baseball, when the play at first is a race between a fielder and the runner, we can tell who arrived first if the the feet are separated by a 3 or 4 inches--about a third of a foot or approximately 10 milliseconds. Again only vision is used, and there is no surprise.

Now on to what I suspect may be controversial:
For a play at first involving a thrown ball, a good umpire will have seen the ball being thrown (he needs to know if it is a quality throw), and will, whether he knows it or not, have formed an estimate of when it will arrive at first base. He can also see when the runner is approaching the base. The two events are fairly predictable. Then, if he knows the play will be close, and he uses his eyes to check for a pulled foot, and his ears to hear the sound of the foot striking the bag and the ball hitting the glove, he'll be able to do considerably better than 40 milliseconds. There are two different kinds sounds depending on which occurred first. With practice, by identifying the character of the sound, you can tell which occurred first.

Don't believe it? Well, even for a fast runner, 40 milliseconds is more than a foot of travel. Watch enough television replays of close plays at first base, and you'll see that the professional guys call it correctly when there is well less than a foot difference.

[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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Don't believe it? Well, even for a fast runner, 40 milliseconds is more than a foot of travel. Watch enough television replays of close plays at first base, and you'll see that the professional guys call it correctly when there is well less than a foot difference.

Its not that I don't believe it if the stadium were completely empty. I find it hard to believe when the stadium is completely full and the home crowd yells safe or out moments before the ball makes a sound in the mitt. I find it hard to believe, a MLB umpire will hear every catch in these realistic conditions.

An umpire has to rely on more than hearing, vision is a good indicator. One good eye can move or jump many times in .04 secs and provide more value than both ears combined. Sorry, but at my age, I can't hear ****, so you must speak loudly in a quiet room. Sorry, will you repeat that. I can't hear you. But I would never dare umpire if I knew I were blind as a bat. Eyesight allows you to see foot hit the bag. Then hearing confirms what you already knew.

Umpires are as bug-eyed as you can get. Whatever detail one eye can capture, two eyes focused on the same spot always improve the details of sight within our brain. Now imagine an umpire with an ability to focus or shift eyes, called rapid eye movement, independently of one focal point. The improvement in vision would not only be twice as significant, it would exponentially increase, by a power of two {no pun intended}. Known as stereoscopic vision, vision of simple 2-D image would maginify the 3-D aspects of depth necessary for our brain to accurately judge the time of touch and time of catch together.

[dash_riprock]

And to sum it all up, I have an out. (Dave - your post was really interesting.)

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

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

[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

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by Tim C

BTW, the NTSB study noted that highly trained officials use other information when making decisions and therefore are more often than not correct even when the brain cannot determine the difference.

What types of other information do they use?

[zebra2955]

OK I will ask this again

With no runners on base, it is a ball if the pitcher starts his windup and then stops. FALSE in professional baseball, but TRUE in high school baseball and softball. In professional baseball, this is just a no-pitch

Where in the FED book is this located. I cannot find it and need some help

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by SAump

If A in bold is true, then B in bold cannot be true. Your statement crumbles under the weight of your logic. The only thing you have proven, is this blather of intelligent form defies common sense. Nobody can argue against that! You do not understand it.


Please let me know if the meaning of at the same time is before the ball arrives or after the ball arrives?

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.

Originally Posted by SAump

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? 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.

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.

[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?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?