Rules Myths Part 1

[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,

Since you're a player at NFHS can you tell me if NFHS thinks a tie is impossible?
And also if the rules committee were posed with a theoretical situation where there was a tie at 1st. What would their interp be? Out or Safe

My guess is No and Safe.

If so, does that make them all urber trolls?
Just wonderin

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

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?

Stupid? No. They understood what they meant. The runner beats the throw or the throw beats the runner. Had they wanted a third option do you think they were too stupid to include it?

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?

No, the rules do not account for it. The rules do not mention it. Ties were invented by fans and rats. After all this time, if a tie was to be considered it would have been added to the rule book

Evans is wrong!

The one authority on the rules who has researched the rules and their intent for over 30 years, who has had access to early notes and writings of the rulesmakes and who, with MLB's blessings has proveded interpretations for MLB umpires is wrong and you are right? My goodness we are full of ourselves aren't we?

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.

To insist one does occur show a real lack of understanding of physics and the rules.

Ties are accounted for by using very simple logic.

No. "Ties are accounted for by umpires who don't understand the proper interpretation of the rules.

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

Should I ever hear that sentence spoken aloud, my thought would be "must be a coach."

What's the big deal?

Obviously there's no big deal for an amateur umpire who knows the rule interpretations better than Jim Evans.

[mbyron]

Garth, you're wasting valuable electrons on this über troll (as Tee would have it -- nice term, Tee!).

[PeteBooth]

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?

As Garth said the rule-makers were not stupid. You are either out or safe.

If we go by what you recommend then in effect we have a "do-over" because there was a tie.

In our Profession these close plays are not called TIES, they are called "coin-flip" calls and there are factors we should consider.

If F6 goes deep into the hole and makes a spectacular play and the play at first is a "coin-flip" then we reward the defense.

Conversely, if B1 hits a routine ground ball to F4 and B1 is busting it out of the box and F4 mis-plays the ball and turns what should have been a routine play into a "coin-flip" we reward the offense.

This site is still valuable and there are new posters or young umpires trying to learn and the word TIE is not contained in any rule nor should it be.

Pete Booth

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Obviously there's no big deal for an amateur umpire who knows the rule interpretations better than Jim Evans.

Garth, you know as well as I that my statement Re:Evans was only in response to whether a tie was possible or not. To take it out of context and imply or state that I feel I know rules better than Evans is dishonest and beneath you.

Why is using the word "tie" like putting garlic in a vampires nose to you guys?

You are so worked up over the word "tie" that you are being intellectually dishonest or you indeed did fail your logic class.

You go to a golf tourney and they have a Beat the Pro fundraiser for a hundred bucks.
The rules say if you "beat the pro" (get closer to the pin than him) you win a grand. There's nothing in the rules about a tie, no need. The rules say if I beat him I win. If we're both 6' 1" from the pin a TIE do you think I get the grand? Of course not, I didn't beat him. He didn't beat me but that wasn't the deal I had to beat him.
Now if it was a "If the pro beats you, you lose" fundraiser it's a different story, now if we tie I win. Words mean things. Still nothing in the rules about a tie but there was a tie and there was no confusion as to the ruling or who wins or doesn't win the grand despite the fact that the word "tie" never showed up in the rules.

You get the concept, it's just the garlic filling your head with hatred that has you in denial

Two questions
1. do you contend that it is a physical impossibility for the tag of the base and the touch by the BR to be at the same time?
If so so be it. I wouldn't want my son in your physics class but so be it.

2. If it is possible, what do the rules say about it?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

You get the concept, it's just the garlic filling your head with hatred that has you in denial.

I have no hatred. I have no emotion invested in this or you. The difference is I understand the proper interpretation of a rule and apparently you do not.

Two questions
1. do you contend that it is a physical impossibility for the tag of the base and the touch by the BR to be at the same time?
If so so be it. I wouldn't want my son in your physics class but so be it.

You woud rather you son enroll in a physics class that does not properly teach the probability of these two things happening at exactly the same time?

2. If it is possible, what do the rules say about it?

The rules do not include consideration for any such improbable event. The rules provide for two possibilities: The ball beats the runner, the runner beats the ball. The rule makers did not intend for any third option.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

As Garth said the rule-makers were not stupid. You are either out or safe.

If we go by what you recommend then in effect we have a "do-over" because there was a tie.

Pete Pete Pete
You have failed to read or comprehend a single one of my posts.
See post 35 specifically

By RULE the tag at first must beat the BR's touch. IF it was a tie or as you say a coinflip then the tag did not beat the touch therefore SAFE.
Where did I ever propose "do over"?

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

In our Profession these close plays are not called TIES, they are called "coin-flip" calls and there are factors we should consider.

If F6 goes deep into the hole and makes a spectacular play and the play at first is a "coin-flip" then we reward the defense.

Conversely, if B1 hits a routine ground ball to F4 and B1 is busting it out of the box and F4 mis-plays the ball and turns what should have been a routine play into a "coin-flip" we reward the offense.

This site is still valuable and there are new posters or young umpires trying to learn and the word TIE is not contained in any rule nor should it be.

Let me say FINALLY someone of reason, even though you did accuse me of "do overs"

Back in post 11 I said Ties are for umpires. Meaning in a very practical way we can rule whichever way for the very reasons you just stated, or just simply to get an out if we're so inclined.

After that some of the regulars jumped on 56 for using the word tie. Now I have no idea who 56 is and I have no axe to grind and I thought it bush to start namecalling because the guy stated a theoretical truth.
I jumped on board with 56 and defended the position with rules. The response of course was more name calling.
I figured if these guys were half the teacher they purport to be they would use this as a teaching opportunity, but instead they could only hurl insults.

Theoretically my position is very sound and I stand by it, theoretically.
Practically, ties or coin flips belong to the umpire as I stated in the very beginning.

You're the only one after all these posts who gave practical on the field application to this theoretcal situation.
To which I have to say I 100% adhere to. It's the advice and teaching I've received from the beginning and what I pass down to those I have the opportunity to mentor

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

The rules do not include consideration for any such improbable event. The rules provide for two possibilities: The ball beats the runner, the runner beats the ball. The rule makers did not intend for any third option.

For the BR to be out at first the ball(tag) must beat the runner.
I agree 110%
no ifs ands or buts, Ball beats runner=BR out. No other options Total agreement.

Runner beats ball to any base SAFE no ifs and or buts. 110% of the time, SAFE. Total agreement.
We could be brothers even soul mates we're so much in agreement

Conversely, if ball doesn't beat runner to first, runner is safe. Agreed?

[MrUmpire]

One wants to demonstrate he can extract a meaning unintended in the rule and the other interprets the rule as it was intended.

Easy choice.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If F6 goes deep into the hole and makes a spectacular play and the play at first is a "coin-flip" then we reward the defense.

Conversely, if B1 hits a routine ground ball to F4 and B1 is busting it out of the box and F4 mis-plays the ball and turns what should have been a routine play into a "coin-flip" we reward the offense.

You act like this is an absolute rule. It's not. I'll tell you right now: On every "coin-flip" play as you describe, I call the runner out. It's consistent and I don't really care what kind of play a fielder made on the ball. NFHS, NCAA, it doesn't matter.

[bob jenkins]

1) the OP is not the first person to discover this discrepancy between a "tie" on the BR and a "tie" with other runners. It's been discussed on-line since the day after Al Gore invented it (on the day Al Gore invented it, only porn was discussed).

2) All the rules codes (OBR, NCAA and FED) have the same "error."

3) So, my guess is that neither NCAA nor FED meant the rule to be different -- they just followed the OBR wording.

4) OBR has 234 (or some such number) "known errors" and this is one of them.

5) The general interp, regardless of the physics, is that the umpire determines which happened first and rules accordingly on all runners at all bases.

6) I agree that it's theoretically possible for the two separate events to happen at the same time. That theory, though, has no relevance to umpiring and no umpire worth his salt would rule one way on a "tie" at first and another way on a "tie" at second and certainly would NOT explain the ruling to the coaches that way.

[mbyron]

I agree with Bob, and hope that this thread has a pleasant retirement.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You act like this is an absolute rule. It's not. I'll tell you right now: On every "coin-flip" play as you describe, I call the runner out. It's consistent and I don't really care what kind of play a fielder made on the ball. NFHS, NCAA, it doesn't matter.

The reason why umpires shouldn't care how remarkable a play was made is that I've seen many umpires kick calls where the runner was safe by a really small amount, but the umpire rewards the great play and calls the runner out. I honestly try not to become a spectator on the truly great plays - I have a job to do.

There are umpires, newer ones especially, who see plays a lot closer than those who have seen these types of plays for years. Calling someone out when they beat the throw by .10 second is not going to win friends and influence people.

But when a play is truly "too close to call" for me, and it does happen once in a great while, I call the runner out. Like I said, it's consistent - and if I can't tell the difference, nobody else without a stop-action camera can either. If there's a 50 percent chance I'm going to be wrong, I'd rather it be when I called an out. Sue me.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with Bob, and hope that this thread has a pleasant retirement.

Not me. Now I wanna know who the tie goes to in the porn that Bob was referring to.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Not me. Now I wanna know who the tie goes to in the porn that Bob was referring to.

Trouble maker.