Rules Myths Part 1

[SAump]

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, not do overs as you accused 56 of promoting.

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!

[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

[ljdave]

Originally Posted by 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

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......

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ljdave

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.

[LMSANS]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[zebra2955]

Do you honestly call that an ball???

[LMSANS]

Originally Posted by zebra2955

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by zebra2955

Do you honestly call that an ball???

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.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by SAump

Definition of bondage Is this useful? Yes|NoThanks! Tell us more
A - slavery: the condition of being enslaved or forced into serfdom
B - physical restraint during sex: the practice of being tied up or restrained physically during sex acts
C - restriction: the condition of being controlled by something that limits freedom

Hasn't your oposition to "bondage" been your latest "mantra" on this website?
How many post and how long have you been talking about those mean people here who restict your freedom.
Your buddy, buddy are the only ones I know who have never tried to restrict your freedom on this website.
Any idea of the two references I am talking about?

Definition of mantra Is this useful? Yes|NoThanks! Tell us more
A - holy word in meditation: in Hindu and Buddhist religious practice, a sacred word, chant, or sound that is repeated during meditation to facilitate spiritual power and transformation of consciousness
B - often repeated expression or idea: an expression or idea that is repeated, often without thinking...

Now if you were so upset with the direction this website has taken, you could go away!
If not, then interpret post #8 through #39 that suggest a tie should go to the runner and provide a summary by Monday.

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.

[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?

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by SAump

I did see the humor in the comments, just thought the aim landed close to home.
I mistook your joke for a personal attack on me or an attack on this website because of me.
Now that you made your intentions perfectly clear. I apologize.
How is your homework or term paper(s) coming along?

No offence taken.

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

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

This became a pretty funny thread.

PWL (Steven Tyler) comes on here in his "old" moniker of "BigSteve56" (remember he has used it before) and drags out even a worse troll.

"Evans is wrong!"

And now that CO Ump (urber troll) has ended the discussion.

I also am moving on today as this thread has become one against the world.

Regards,

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.