By rule?
 

RIF, 0-fer-4 Is it snowing there? How is the powder?
SAump accused 56 of promoting safes in posts #8, #17, #20 and #28; not outs, nor do-overs, rockhead.
SAump hinted 56 would be better off promoting do-overs in posts #14 and #29, rather than safes, boulderbrain.
SAump was the promoting safes or outs, over do-overs in posts #14 and #29, not 56, agateface.
SAump read your post about "ties going to the umpire" in post #11 and #35 and wonders why CO ump can't follow along, cementlips.

Someone boo CO ump! 1, 2, 3. BOOOO!

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

Despite the logic, and findings of research....
 

Some think this horse isn't dead yet:eek:

AR

Zebra, I read this whole strand looking for the answer to your original question. Sorry, but I don't have anything definite, either. Although, I think you and I agree that in NFHS it is not a ball; it's nothing. Same as if the pitcher on the rubber drops the ball (And it doesn't cross the foul line); it's a balk if there are runners and no-pitch if there are no runners. This may have been a rule change a few years ago......

Not correct. As previously posted, starting and stopping is a ball in FED with no runners on. Starting and stopping is defined as an illegal pitch in 6-2-4, the penalty for which is given at the end of 6-1-3.

This is NOT the same as dropping the ball, which is addressed separately in 6-1-4.

How about 6-2-2c ...failing to pitch or make or attempt a play, including a legal feint, within 20 seconds after he has received the ball.
PENALTY:The batter shall be awarded one ball.

Do you honestly call that an ball???

If the pitcher starts and stops with no runners on, probably not. Though I have never seen it.

I was just answering the question.

You do what's expected in your neighborhood. The rule is well known here and when an F1 starts and starts EVERYONE begins yelling "that's a ball."

Yes, we enforce it.

Don't try to psychanalyze me. I meant it as a joke, and if you want to search for examples of projection, well Freud is waaaaaaaaaaaay old school.

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.

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?


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?


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.

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.

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?

No offence taken.

School is murder. I've heard 2nd year university is the filter year, so hopefully things get easier next year.

If Evans says ties are impossible as GB insinuated then yes IMO Evans is wrong.
Curious no response to the main point of the post

One question

Is it impossible to have a tie?
and I'll bet neither you or GB give a straight yes or no answer which speaks volumes.