Rules Myths Part 1

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

Let's not be so hasty. COump may have discovered something: a new game.

Form teams of two and go through the rules with a dictionary at hand and see how many rules can be interpreted in how many ways other than what was intended.

Every time one is found, the player shouts, "Theoretically my position is sound and I stand by it!"

Then everyone has to chug a bottle of PBR.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Then everyone has to chug a bottle of PBR.

The first to finish, slam down his bottle and exclaim "Evans is wrong!" is declared the winner.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Let's not be so hasty. COump may have discovered something: a new game.

Form teams of two and go through the rules with a dictionary at hand and see how many rules can be interpreted in how many ways other than what was intended.

Every time one is found, the player shouts, "Theoretically my position is sound and I stand by it!"

Then everyone has to chug a bottle of PBR.

PBR? Let's at least give people a choice of Schafer, Stroh's, Iron City, Schlitz, or Schmidt's.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

FWIW



Since we all agree that rarely but occasionally there are coin flips, is it possible, that the rules makers oh so long ago wanted to give direction on this rare phenomenon.
It certainly would not have been credible to say if the defense makes a great play call the out or if BR hustles give him the call. They also may not have wanted to give the benefit 100% of the time to the offense or defense.
So based on the rules as written, benefit goes to BR at first.

At all other bases we'll give the nod to the defense, it may or may not be a 50/50 split but it's the best we can do to be fair to both sides in these coin flip situations.

The original rules makers may very well have intended to give direction for these coin flip situations.

Maybe the rules makers were not so naive, maybe there's only 233 mistakes and they knew there would be coin flip plays and were genius in how they wrote the basic rules of tags and force plays.

Certainly there is tradition that comes down thru the umpiring ranks that tends to dismiss these rules as written and comes at it with a little different philosophy, it works, it ain't broke and I'm not calling for a revolutionary change in philosophy.

However, the issue came up on the board and I think it shows extreme intolerance and maybe even insecurity to name call and attempt to bully someone off the board because they dare to look at a rule literally and discuss the original intent of the rule.

PS

After extensive research I've concluded that it was Alexander Cartwright who first coined the phrase "Tie goes to the runner" as he was briefing a rookie umpire in the spring of 1846.
And interestingly enough the Knickerbocker Rules support such a statement.
Nothing in those rules say anything about a runner beating the tag. Only one statement
"A player running the bases shall be out, if the ball is in the hands of an adversary on the base, or the runner is touched with it before he makes his base"

Do you think back in 1845 when they penned this rule that they realized ties were an impossibility?
I mean it was 1845, and certainly Evans wasn't around yet to make his scientific claims.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The first to finish, slam down his bottle and exclaim "Evans is wrong!" is declared the winner.

Or we could play the Lemming game and all walk off the cliff together as we follow the master of physics himself.

Because if Evans has declared, as GB indicated, that ties are physically, statistically and just plain universally impossible then it must be so

[TwoBits]

I was excited to see over five pages of responses on the thread I started, but was less than so when I discovered 4 1/2 of those pages were regarding a physics discussion about the speed of light, sound, slavery and bondage, and whether two things can truely occur at the same time. The exact same discussion has started to occur on the softball board, too, albeit in a lesser scientific detail than the one here.

For those of you who did not hijack this thread, thanks for your responses and your constructive criticism. Moderators, you may lock this thread at your convenience.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Or we could play the Lemming game and all walk off the cliff together as we follow the master of physics himself.

Because if Evans has declared, as GB indicated, that ties are physically, statistically and just plain universally impossible then it must be so

In the words of my good friend Dave Hensley:

When it's you against the world, back the world.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

rules can be interpreted in how many ways other than what was intended.

"A player running the bases shall be out, if the ball is in the hands of an adversary on the base, or the runner is touched with it before he makes his base;"

Here's the original knickerbocker rule from 1845.
Tell me what was intended. Please give some sort of backup that proves your assertion that Cartwright did not intend for Ties to go to the runner.
Please tell me why he worded it this way as opposed to "runner must beat the tag"
As an educator you know how important it is to back up claims and assertions with fact.
So please enlighten me

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

"A player running the bases shall be out, if the ball is in the hands of an adversary on the base, or the runner is touched with it before he makes his base;"

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CO ump

"A player running the bases shall be out, if the ball is in the hands of an adversary on the base, or the runner is touched with it before he makes his base;"

Here's the original knickerbocker rule from 1845.
Tell me what was intended. Please give some sort of backup that proves your assertion that Cartwright did not intend for Ties to go to the runner.
Please tell me why he worded it this way as opposed to "runner must beat the tag"
As an educator you know how important it is to back up claims and assertions with fact.
So please enlighten me

Here's a better question. Define a "tie."

How many decimal places to the right of a second constitutes a tie? 2? 3? 100? Is it my perception, the best human possible perception, the perception a video camera can make?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

And finally: Who cares? If it's THAT close that I can't tell the difference, it's mine.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CO ump

"A player running the bases shall be out, if the ball is in the hands of an adversary on the base, or the runner is touched with it before he makes his base;"

Here's the original knickerbocker rule from 1845.
Tell me what was intended. Please give some sort of backup that proves your assertion that Cartwright did not intend for Ties to go to the runner.
Please tell me why he worded it this way as opposed to "runner must beat the tag"
As an educator you know how important it is to back up claims and assertions with fact.
So please enlighten me

Relevant only if someone is officiating an "old-timers game" under the original rules.

Since most of us are officiating modern games under modern rules, I'll stick with the modern interpretation.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Relevant only if someone is officiating an "old-timers game" under the original rules.

Since most of us are officiating modern games under modern rules, I'll stick with the modern interpretation.

Bob, the "modern interpretation" and that from 100 years ago is the same.

The point I tried, unsuccessfully, it appears, to make is that while one can certainly make a case that the wording found in the rule books may be used to justify the existence of what may pass for some as a "tie", that condition, according to the experts who have spent years researching, and a career intepreting the rules, was not a consideration of the rulesmakers, despite their chosen wording. There was no original intent to cover what we know as a "tie."

A "tie" in baseball is a relatively new concept introduced not by the rulesmakers or rules committees or even professionals entrusted with interpreting the rules, but by outsiders who choose to put that meaning to the words in the rule book.

The original consideration was simple, did the ball beat the runner? Yes? He's out. Did the runner beat the ball? Yes. He's safe. That's it. There was no thought of, "well, by the dictionary defintion of each word chosen, that leave open the possibility of a tie, therefore....."

If consideration for a tie was intended, it would have been specifically addressed, not left to the imagination of second guessers.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Relevant only if someone is officiating an "old-timers game" under the original rules.

Since most of us are officiating modern games under modern rules, I'll stick with the modern interpretation.

Bob,
The rule hasn't changed for the BR. It's exactly the same as penned in 1845. The rule is the same. So you can't say this rule is relevant only for old timers.


I've NEVER suggested we change the current interpretation, in fact quite the contrary

However, since I first posted that the original intent of the rule may have been written to allow for a tie and give the runner the benefit of such, it has been met with much disdain, as if I had insulted the mothers of each of these guys.
I've also been told that my thoughts on this are definitively not the ORIGINAL intent of the rule.

I've posted the original rule from 1845, 'tag must beat the BR' has not changed since 1845.

I've asked Garth to enlighten me with the original intent that he seems to have such knowledge of, instead he posts a picture of a whale.

"TIE goes to the runner" has a solid foundation in the original rules and may very well have been accurate and accepted concept in the 19th century.
Though the modern umpire interpretation does not allow for such today, the rule remains unchanged and perhaps is why the montra from coaches and fans remains the same today

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Bob,
I've asked Garth to enlighten me with the original intent that he seems to have such knowledge of, instead he posts a picture of a whale.

A whale?

We've discovered the problem.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Bob, the "modern interpretation" and that from 100 years ago is the same.

The point I tried, unsuccessfully, it appears, to make is that while one can certainly make a case that the wording found in the rule books may be used to justify the existence of what may pass for some as a "tie", that condition, according to the experts who have spent years researching, and a career intepreting the rules, was not a consideration of the rulesmakers, despite their chosen wording. There was no original intent to cover what we know as a "tie.".

Just show me one piece of research that speaks to this and has some credible insight into Cartwright' intent.
It's easy to make universal statements, refer to unknown research and think the case is made.
I'm simply reading the rule as written today and as written in 1845 and saying that the words as written allows for the statement "TIE goes to the runner" to be a true statement.
Because it is a true statement I further proposed that it may very well have been intentional.
It may or may not have been, but name calling doesn't prove that it wasn't and neither do vague statements about unknown research.

Originally Posted by GarthB

A "tie" in baseball is a relatively new concept introduced not by the rulesmakers or rules committees or even professionals entrusted with interpreting the rules, but by outsiders who choose to put that meaning to the words in the rule book..

Words mean things and absolutely no manipualting of the rule or word definitions are necessary for the statement "tie goes to the runner" to be accurate and true.

When exactly did the TIE concept first emerge?

Originally Posted by GarthB

The original consideration was simple, did the ball beat the runner? Yes? He's out. Did the runner beat the ball? Yes. He's safe.

That's it. There was no thought of, "well, by the dictionary defintion of each word chosen, that leave open the possibility of a tie, therefore....."

If consideration for a tie was intended, it would have been specifically addressed, not left to the imagination of second guessers.

I'm sorry, I never once saw the words "Did the runner beat the ball" in the original rules.
If they intended for the "runner to beat the ball" would they not have said so?

ball beats runner that's where the rule stopped, no mention of runner beating ball.