Rules Myths Part 1

[Al]

Originally Posted by CO ump

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

Whale?... I thought he was beating a dead horse.

As for me...any time the ball or a tag does not beat the Batter Runner to 1st that BR will be called SAFE. If I can't tell for sure if the BR or the ball got there first I'm not guessing the BR out. ..Al

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

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. 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? 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?

Wow.

Where's that horse?

[CO ump]

Whose to say Alex and his buddies weren't sitting around have a cold PBR talking about the new game and one of them says " hey, what about ties" and Alex thinks for a minute and not being near as learned as most of us today never considered that ties were impossible, finally after deliberation says,"good question, who should get the advantage of a tie?" All his buddies being players and not umps said "runner, yea for sure the runner" "OK then" Alex says "the ball has to beat the runner. Lets have another beer"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Wow.

Where's that horse?

Interesting how you haven't produced one single piece of backup to show where your supreme knowledge of original intent comes from.

I'm not declaring I know, simply proposing.
You on the other hand have declared from the beginning that you KNOW the original intent, not the modern interpretation but the original intent.

Also you have declared that the myth "tie goes to the runner" is a recent myth and has no roots in the 19th century.
Again please show me where that info comes from
Come on please enlighten me

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Come on please enlighten me

Choose from:

1. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
2. Why? So you can say (fill in the blank) "_________ is wrong!"


Bottom line is that I have discussed this at length with those who have spent the time to understand "orginal intent" and I will trust them over an internet umpire screaming "the tie goes to the runne...it says so right here, sort of." They know baseball while you have an average understanding of Webster.

Now then:

TAG, YOU'RE IT!!!


(Where the hell is that horse?)

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Wow.

Where's that horse?

Garth,

A harvard study concluded that 94% of what people declare as fact they do not know the source of the information.
Which is how myths, misinformation and just plain bad info continues to perpetrate society.
According to this Harvard study, what most people declare as fact, in truth they have no idea if it's true or not, because they have no idea where they even heard, read or recieved the info.

So are your statements part of the 94% or the 6%?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Garth,

A harvard study concluded that 94% of what people declare as fact they do not know the source of the information.
Which is how myths, misinformation and just plain bad info continues to perpetrate society.
According to this Harvard study, what most people declare as fact, in truth they have no idea if it's true or not, because they have no idea where they even heard, read or recieved the info.

So are your statements part of the 94% or the 6%?

Keep it coming. I have "9 pages" in the pool.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Al

Whale?... I thought he was beating a dead horse.

As for me...any time the ball or a tag does not beat the Batter Runner to 1st that BR will be called SAFE. If I can't tell for sure if the BR or the ball got there first I'm not guessing the BR out. ..Al

Why would you "guess" the BR safe? Isn't the defense entitled to the same benefit of your doubt?

[Al]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Wow.

Where's that horse?

Right there on the ground. Okay, that horse isn't quite dead and I suppose as long as men and women are not programmed robots we will not agree on everything. I think there is plenty out there to deal with among the coaches and fans without letting a minor difference come into play against fellow umpires. I always expect to see some childish postings on an open forum like this, but it always weakens ones case when one resorts to name calling. Especilly when the ones being called trolls are posting well supported arguments. Sometimes I think some try to put others down in order to lift themselves up in the eyes of others. You certainly don't need to do that. You are way above that and I have always enjoyed your posts. Thanks, Al ...

[Al]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Why would you "guess" the BR safe? Isn't the defense entitled to the same benefit of your doubt?

Because the onus is on the defense to get the ball to the base or tag the runner BEFORE the BR gets to the 1st base. ... Al

[UmpTTS43]

I am reminded of my argument on tagging a base with an emply glove, in a philisophical way. At least I knew when to quit.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Al

Because the onus is on the defense to get the ball to the base or tag the runner BEFORE the BR gets to the 1st base. ... Al

Who says it isn't before? If it's too close to tell one way or the other, why default to the runner? It's just as likely the throw beat the runner and you simply couldn't process it because the difference was so small.

Out, every time.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Al

I always expect to see some childish postings on an open forum like this, but it always weakens ones case when one resorts to name calling.

And when did I do that?

Especilly when the ones being called trolls are posting well supported arguments.

You are confused. The one I referred to as a troll, BigSteve56, a well known troll, had made no arguments. You have the troll mixed up with COump. An understandable error. However, the only support the non-troll has is a dictionary and his inaccurate assumptions.

Sometimes I think some try to put others down in order to lift themselves up in the eyes of others. You certainly don't need to do that.

You're right. That's why I didn't.

You are way above that

Not necessarily, but correct in this thread.


(Only two pages to go)

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Bottom line is that I have discussed this at length with those who have spent the time to understand "orginal intent" and I will trust them over an internet umpire screaming "the tie goes to the runne...it says so right here, sort of." They know baseball while you have an average understanding of Webster.

Now then:

TAG, YOU'RE IT!!!


(Where the hell is that horse?)

My guess is they're probably guessing. If there was definitive writings on the original intent then they would have been published long ago to counter the dreaded Tie goes to the runner myth.

From which resources have they spent so much time studying? Whose great grandson did they interview?
I'm guessing your friends are giving it their best guess.
Which is fine because that's all I'm doing

Usually myths have some basis in truth and IMO it could very well be that back in the 19th century TGTTR may have been an accepted concept.
As umpires got more sophisticated and realized that outs were much better than safes they, on their own and without benefit of rule changes, got past TGTTR and into I'll take the out where I can get it.
To the umpires dismay, the outrage of the public, the players, the coaches was unbearable, the umpires, afraid of losing so many outs, bound together and en masse began to perpetrate the myth that there are no ties, it was a losing battle. They were even so bold as to put TGTTR on the list of top 10 baseball myths.
To this day, the umpires have not yet been able to fully pull the wool over the publics eyes. The montra at parks and stadiums nationwide remains
"TIE GOES TO THE RUNNER"
The lonely umpire can only point to his list of mythical myths and say "but there are no ties."
The public will have none of it, it's in their genetics- TGTTR.
Everyday Alex and Abner cry from the grave. "Please, please just give the tie to the runner and let's be done with it"
But alas, for generations now every umpire has gone to his grave fighting for that one more out.

Today the myth continues to be perpetrated.

That's my theory. Prove me wrong


You know why I came up with this theory last week? That TGTTR may have been part of original intent? Because I've yet to find any credible resource to the contrary, the rules support my supposition and I love to tweek the he!! out of you guys, not to mention that the second somebody says anything outside your tidy little box you go ape and start hurling the insults. It's hard to sit on the sidelines and watch the piling on.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by SAump

Boooo!

Dialogue requires one to ask questions, listen to answers and then answer questions that may be posed to determine their understanding above the original POV. Dialogue does not occur when the same question is projected to multiple people and the advice of others is ignored as if it didn't merit attention. I fail to see half of this picture come to fruition. This train never left the station.
.

Perhaps you can provide some proof that my theory is wrong.
Perhaps you can provide some insight into Alex's intent.
Perhaps you can enlighten me since Garth can only duck and hide when it comes to providing backup for his assertions.

Or perhaps you can show ignorance thru insult.

I wonder which it will be?