Rules Myths Part 1

[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.