Rules Myths Part 1

[BigSteve56]

Originally Posted by SAump

Source of BigSteve56's faulty logic.

Go back to my response to dash riprock then tell me how my logic is wrong.
Don't cite 8-2-8 either because it's not a valid argument against 8-4-1f. The two rules go hand in hand. 8-2-8 SUPPORTS 8-4-1f. Excuse me, I inadvertantly referenced 7-4-1f.

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base:

ART. 8... A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out.

Unless the ball beats the runner, the runner is NOT OUT. If he is NOT OUT, he has ACQUIRED the base. A "tie", "dead heat", "simultaneous" or any other word you want to use indicates that there is NO OUT because the defense has not fulfilled the obligation of getting he ball to the base BEFORE the runner has touched the base.

Put the two rules together and tell me how my logic is wrong, using the context of the rule book. Don't just say it's wrong, cite the rules as they are written.

The only thing I've stated is that there can be a tie, a statistical time frame, from which an umpire cannot determine with any certainty which event occurred first -the runner or the ball reaching the base, and that any determination is a "guess" as Tim C alluded to. I agree 100%. I've never questioned that. My whole position is based on accepting the idea that theoretically there can be a "tie", and if so, 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT. If 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT, then he has ACQUIRED THE BASE under 8-2-8.

SAump says 8-2-8 is the source of my faulty logic. You made the statement - tell me how, given what I have stated above within the context of the rules book, that my logic is wrong.

There are only 3 statements that come into this scenario -

1. A tie is possible, within the statistical time frame as stated.
2. 8-4-1f
3. 8-2-8

Given that, prove to me that a runner in a "tie" situation is in fact out.

Again, don't cite what some umpire told you, or what you heard in a discussion. We are dealing with a 100% straight observance of the rule as it is written.

If you can't do it, then either admit it and suck up a little pride, or just don't respond. I've put a challenge out there and I'll takes my lumps if anyone can prove me wrong. What I don't deserve is a bunch of troll comments. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion. I've taken a position I believe in, not out of pride, arrogance, or any other false pretense, but because I believe it to be the right position. I've opened myself up to ridicule from all of you.

Umpires are supposed to have integrity. Think about it before you attack.

[SAump]

In your own words, like you tied me up by the ankles too!

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

Go back to my response to dash riprock then tell me how my logic is wrong. Don't cite 8-2-8 either because it's not a valid argument against 8-4-1f. The two rules go hand in hand. 8-2-8 SUPPORTS 8-4-1f. Excuse me, I inadvertantly referenced 7-4-1f.

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base:

ART. 8... A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out.

Unless the ball beats the runner, the runner is NOT OUT. If he is NOT OUT, he has ACQUIRED the base. A "tie", "dead heat", "simultaneous" or any other word you want to use indicates that there is NO OUT because the defense has not fulfilled the obligation of getting he ball to the base BEFORE the runner has touched the base.

Put the two rules together and tell me how my logic is wrong, using the context of the rule book. Don't just say it's wrong, cite the rules as they are written.

The only thing I've stated is that there can be a tie, a statistical time frame, from which an umpire cannot determine with any certainty which event occurred first -the runner or the ball reaching the base, and that any determination is a "guess" as Tim C alluded to. I agree 100%. I've never questioned that. My whole position is based on accepting the idea that theoretically there can be a "tie", and if so, 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT. If 8-4-1f is invoked and the runner is NOT OUT, then he has ACQUIRED THE BASE under 8-2-8.

SAump says 8-2-8 is the source of my faulty logic. You made the statement - tell me how, given what I have stated above within the context of the rules book, that my logic is wrong.

There are only 3 statements that come into this scenario -

1. A tie is possible, within the statistical time frame as stated.
2. 8-4-1f
3. 8-2-8

Given that, prove to me that a runner in a "tie" situation is in fact out.

Again, don't cite what some umpire told you, or what you heard in a discussion. We are dealing with a 100% straight observance of the rule as it is written.
If you can't do it, then either admit it and suck up a little pride, or just don't respond. I've put a challenge out there and I'll takes my lumps if anyone can prove me wrong. What I don't deserve is a bunch of troll comments. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion. I've taken a position I believe in, not out of pride, arrogance, or any other false pretense, but because I believe it to be the right position. I've opened myself up to ridicule from all of you.

Umpires are supposed to have integrity. Think about it before you attack.

Is there an F across my forehead or something?
What part of before and after didn't you understand? Ties!
Would you like me to repeat the part you left out? Ties!
WTHAYTA? Ties! Thank God for the ability to cut and paste.

No one said ties do not exist. They said the "tie goes to the runner myth" does not exists. Is there room left for judgement?
As you stated, the ball did not arrive before the runner. So did the ball arrive after the runner? You stated there was no tie in the rulebook. Please explain why you incorrectly ruled that the runner was safe every single time? The best you can hope for is "I can't decide, it was a tie, so bat again." That doesn't even pass for minority opinion.

You fail to allow room for judgment in your hypothetical sitch. If umpire judgment were allowed, a tie would always result in a safe OR an out. Ruling every tie goes to the runner would be about as impartial as the unwritten myth. Fortunately, I know the difference between discrimination and favoritism. Obviously, you don't discriminate against the defense. Great. You favor the offense. Great. I am glad your doing such a great job on the diamond. Lucky for me, everyone else I know allows for umpire judgment to be utilized on the real diamond.

BTW, coincidence, first play of the game today a real whacker. Both B/R and 1B came down on the bag a nearly the same time. I ruled in favor of the defense. Later in the same ball game, a real whacker. Both B/R and 1B came down on the bag a exactly the same time. I wish you.tube had a video of the expression that flashed across my face. After I blew out a huge breath and felt my eyes roll up the back of my head, I simply held a wimpy fist up to say the B/r was ruled out. I looked at the base coach in disbelief of what I may have witnessed for I was only hoping one had beaten the other, and told him that play was closer than the other. I didn't hear any complaints and he agreed with how hard my decision must have been.

Now, I encourage you to give the tie to the baserunner a test for the rest of the season and get back to us when you meet a coach who doesn't bye your conclusion. I would love to read the ejection report. On the other hand, I hear t-ball coaches are pretty forgiving. So track the score of every ballgame and report back when you have one with less than ten runs/game. I would love to hear your thoughts about the defensive effort for that game. Ta-ta.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by SAump

In your own words, like you tied me up by the ankles too!

Now we're talking about bondage. WTF is this forum coming to?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bluezebra]

Read the Rule Books a little closer.

"If the batter has reasonable time to vacate the batter’s box, he/she must do so or risk interference being called." FALSE. Unless a runner is attempting to score, the batter's box is a 'safe haven', unless the batter makes an overt move and interferes with the catcher.

"The pitch hitting the ground means nothing." FALSE. It means that it can never be a called strike.

"The runner is only ruled out for being out of the baseline when he/she is trying to avoid being tagged." FALSE. It's not the baseline that matters, it's the runner's BASE PATH.

Bob

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BigSteve56

Umpires are supposed to have integrity. Think about it before you attack.