Rules Myths Part 1

[Al]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Rich, I understand what you are saying and agree it's just as likely the throw beat the runner if it's so close it appears to be a toss-up. But if I see what looks like a tie that also means I did not see the ball or tag beating the BR so I will call Safe. I call them as I see them and if I don't judge a ball to have beaten the BR to 1st base I call the BR safe. ...Al

[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... .

"Discussed this at length"

You discussed this at length with multiple people who spent much time analyzing this very issue. Multiple people that you trust and I assume respect.
Multiple people that felt this very issue was worth spending much time analyzing and even you felt the issue was important enough to have lengthy discussions pouring over their findings and yet, and yet when the issue comes up on the umpire board, a place where such findings have real relevance
Not only doyou dismiss the one bringing up the issue but then insult him, have zero tolerance for another opinion and fail to share the relevant research that was graciously given to you by this research team.

Wow, that speaks volumes

I wonder if your fellow anti tie cohorts picked up on this. That at one time you apparently were on the fence or worse, even dare I say IN the TIE camp?

I guess it's kind of like an ex smoker that becomes intolerant of other smokers once he quits.

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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

Nice bit of photo editing. This scene from Office space, where the guys are beating on an office printer changes to a horse.

Just trying to help you get up to 9 pages.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

That at one time you apparently were on the fence or worse, even dare I say IN the TIE camp?

Careful, you're likely to pull a muscle jumping to such wild conclusions.

I know, I know. Everone else is wrong. You are right. What a burden that must be.

Again, you say B, I say A. Feel better?

Tag!

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Careful, you're likely to pull a muscle jumping to such wild conclusions.

Not so wild, very logical you must admit.

"Discussed at length"


Tag

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Not so wild, very logical you must admit.

"Discussed at length"


Tag

No. If I found that logical, I would indeed have failed the course. But I do find it very telling.

Whenever I am with Jim or others with similar background and experience, I find occasion to discuss at length anything baseball. I let them direct the conversation and I participate when appropriate.

You obviously do not know me. Yes, I've been involved in discussions about the tie misconception and other myths over the years.

Oh, I know, "Evans is wrong" and you are right. You just can't understand that what you think of when you see certain words is not what was meant over 100 years ago. That's quite egocentric of you, but to be expected, I've discovered.

Again, given the choice of whom to trust, you come out on the bottom.

But, please, keep it coming. Only one page to go to get to 9 before this is locked forever.

You're it.

P.S. Don't be late for exercise. Oh, my. do you take that literally as well?

[UmpJM]

CO_Ump,

Your argument is both sophomoric and specious.

It is typically heard from those who have just read the rule book for the first time (carefully) and notice wording that suggests, "Wow! The tie DOES go to the runner! Says so right here! Aren't I clever for noticing what no one else ever did!" Then they read some more, and find another part that says the tie DOESN'T go to the runner in other cases, at other bases. Hmmm.... And then, the Sophists who bring up this unfounded argument don't even bother to address the REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION of, "Does a tie go to the runner during a "time" play, and, if so, which one?!?"

So, even by this "literalist" interpretation, a "tie" does NOT (always) go to the runner.

Now, both Einstein (Relativity: The General and Special Theory (especially the "Special" part) ) and Hegel (Phenomenology of Mind (check the chapter on "Absolute Knowledge" - it's a hoot) ) suggest, rather convincingly I might add, that though it is possible for two events to occur simultaneously at two different points in space, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to objectively perceive it - accurately. Einstein from a Physics point of view, Hegel from a "limits of the process of human perception" point of view. They are both a lot smarter than I, and I believe them.

A basic and false premise that provides the logical foundation of your argument is that the rules are "properly" applied by a "literal" interpretation. Just as those whose "literal" interpretation of the Bible suggests that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, your "literal" interpretation of the rules, while perhaps "intellectually amusing" has no relationship to the real world. (Yes, that was a BLATANT attempt to get this thread "locked" by introducing "religion" into the discussion. Sorry Garth. I had the "under".)

It is both impossible and impractical to actually officiate a game solely by a strictly "literal" interpretation of the text of the rules. A literal read of the rules reveals so many inconsistencies, contradictions, and ambiguities, that it does not provide the necessary information required to officiate a game.

Yours is a "literary analysis". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't have anything to do with officiating a game of baseball. And, even in the realm of literary analysis, you are espousing the "intentional fallacy". A principle of literary criticism which suggests (again, convincingly) that it is truly impossible to "know" the author's intent, and that a work really only "means" what it comes to mean through the interpretations of those who read it and apply the principles.

The two people I have personally met who seem to know the most about what the rules of baseball really MEAN are Jim Evans and Bob Jenkins. They both say "there are no ties, he's safe or he's out".

So, by my reckoning, Einstein, Hegel, Evans, and Jenkins all say "there are no ties". That's good enough for me. In the real world.

Anybody got a lock handy?

JM

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

I appreciate this forum a lot. There's a lot of experienced umps that have a lot of good things to share. Good insights, and it's interesting reading the different approaches to game management situations. It's a fun board and quite frankly the only one I go to aside from my association.
I also recognize a thread like this one for what it's worth. After post 6 or 7 it has no real value. I have the majority of the posts and I see it for what it is.
I say this because i recognize this board for what it is and it's not for heavy philosophical stuff, But:
To my point and your post.
It's been nagging at me since I read it. In the context of this thread it means nothing to me, but in the context of life it means alot and IMO is a very foolish motto to live by and I feel compelled to share


When my oldest son was 12 yrs old he was diagnosed with a fatal liver disease, no cure.
We went to many many doctors and they all gave the same diagnosis, including specialists at Mayo and Childrens memorial in Chicago. The entire medical world, which at that time certainly seemed like the whole world to us was seemingly against us and had a united front. Fatal and no cure.
If we lived by the above motto we would have enrolled him in hospice and had his funeral before his 13th birthday.
Instead of accepting the worlds point of view we prayed and sought direction for a cure.
My son turned 20 last Friday and is as healthy as a horse, not the ones Garth's been beating lately but a healthy one.

Anyway, aside from this forum, the world ain't always right. History is chalk full of individuals who questioned the status quo and bucked the system on many very important issues and were proved to be right despite what the world thought of them at the time.

Sorry for the heavy post.
That quote just bugged the cr@p out of me.

[UmpJM]

CO_Ump,

In regard to your interpretation of the rule that says a parent does what he can to protect and nurture his children, I find your analysis impeccable and your behavior courageous.

But you're STILL WRONG on that other thing!

JM

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

CO_Ump,

Your argument is both sophomoric and specious.

Yours is a "literary analysis". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't have anything to do with officiating a game of baseball. And, even in the realm of literary analysis, you are espousing the "intentional fallacy". A principle of literary criticism which suggests (again, convincingly) that it is truly impossible to "know" the author's intent, and that a work really only "means" what it comes to mean through the interpretations of those who read it and apply the principles.
The two people I have personally met who seem to know the most about what the rules of baseball really MEAN are Jim Evans and Bob Jenkins. They both say "there are no ties, he's safe or he's out".

So, by my reckoning, Einstein, Hegel, Evans, and Jenkins all say "there are no ties". That's good enough for me. In the real world.

Anybody got a lock handy?

JM

Well said 'the bold part'
The rest of it was ok
I respect Bob's opinion
Evans is still wrong
But I agree with you 100%

[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;"

Here's the original knickerbocker rule from 1845.

1. The Knickerbocker, or Cartwright, Rules were not the first rules of baseball. They are most likely in part a codification of what was oral tradition rather than a total creation of one man, a committee or a club.

2. There are records of organized baseball being played in New York in the 1820's, 25 years prior to the Knickerbocker Rules.

3. A record of written rules for Base - Ball, exists from the 18th century.

How many hours, days, weeks have you spent researching notes, papers, articles, books, letters in the museurm archives in New York, Washington and Boston? How many organizations turn to you for orginal interpretations and suggested modern enforcement?



(Almost to page 9)

[UmpJM]

Cheater!

JM

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

1. The Knickerbocker, or Cartwright, Rules were not the first rules of baseball. They are most likely in part a codification of what was oral tradition rather than a total creation of one man, a committee or a club.

2. There are records of organized baseball being played in New York in the 1820's, 25 years prior to the Knickerbocker Rules.

3. A record of written rules for Base - Ball, exists from the 18th century.

How many hours, days, weeks have you spent researching notes, papers, articles, books, letters in the museurm archives in New York, Washington and Boston? How many organizations turn to you for orginal interpretations and suggested modern enforcement?

I was being kind to suggest you only show your vast knowledge of original intent relative to the codification of 1845.
If you want to produce research that shows intent of rules from the 18th century then have at it.
My suggestion would be to stick to what you can prove, which thru 8 pages has been nothing

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Now, both Einstein (Relativity: The General and Special Theory (especially the "Special" part) ) and Hegel (Phenomenology of Mind (check the chapter on "Absolute Knowledge" - it's a hoot) ) suggest, rather convincingly I might add, that though it is possible for two events to occur simultaneously at two different points in space, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to objectively perceive it - JM

Einstien wasn't born yet, Hegel's work had not yet gained prominence in the states and Evans though his birth and his baseball superiority had long been foretold and awaited, the blessed event had not yet taken place.
So as I said in a previous post Alex and his buddies just didn't know that ties were impossible. So the theory still holds up.
I'm awaiting the smoking gun from Garth so I can blow up my theory and join the Evans Faithful

[Jurassic Referee]