Rules Myths Part 1
 

High school baseball season started here just last week, which means summer baseball season and dealing with unknowledgeable dads is just around the corner. Every year I post a modified version of Eteamz's "40 Rules Myths" at local fields. If I need to add or fix anything, please tell me. This document is meant to cover both baseball and softball rules for FED and OBR.


The Batter
· The hands are part of the bat. FALSE. The hands are part of the batter. If a batter is hit in the hands by a pitch, he/she will be allowed to go to first base provided that he/she did not swing, the pitch wasn’t in the strike zone, and he/she made an attempt to get out of the way of the pitch. If the batter does swing at the pitch and is hit in the hand, the pitch is ruled a dead-ball strike, not a foul ball.
· If the batter breaks his/her wrists when swinging, it is a strike. FALSE. It is a strike if, in the umpire’s judgment, the batter attempted to hit the ball. Wrist motion has no bearing in this decision.
· The batter cannot be called out for interference if he/she is in the batter’s box. FALSE. If the batter has reasonable time to vacate the batter’s box, he/she must do so or risk interference being called.
· The batter may not switch batter’s boxes after two strikes. FALSE. No such rule exists.
· The batter who batted out of order is person declared out. FALSE. The proper batter is the one called out. Any hit or advance made by the batter or runners due to the hit, walk, error, or other reason is nullified. The next batter is the one who followed the batter who was called out.
· The batter is out if he/she starts for the dugout before going to first after an uncaught third strike. FALSE. In leagues using professional baseball rules, the batter is declared out once he/she leaves the dirt area surrounding home plate. In high school rules, the batter is not declared out until he/she enters the dugout.
· The batter may never run to first base on an uncaught third strike if first base is occupied at the time of pitch. FALSE. If there are two outs, the batter may run even if first base is occupied.
· The batter may not run to first base if the catcher cleanly catches a pitch for strike three that hits the ground first. FALSE. A catch is defined n part as, “The act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight.” A ball that bounces or hits the ground is no longer in flight.
· If the batter does not pull the bat back while in the bunting position, it is an automatic strike. FALSE. A strike is defined in part as, “A legal pitch that is attempted to be hit by the batter and is missed.” Merely holding the bat in the bunting position does not mean the batter attempted to hit the ball.
· The batter is out if a bunted ball bounces back up and hits the bat while the batter is holding the bat. FALSE. If the batter is still in the batter’s box when this happens, it is ruled a foul ball.
· The batter is out if his/her foot touches the plate. FALSE. In leagues using professional baseball rules, a batter is called out only if the batter's foot is entirely outside the batter’s box and is touching the ground outside the box when he/she contacts the pitch with the bat. He/She is not out if he/she does not contact the pitch with the bat. There is no statement about touching the plate. The toe could be on the plate and the heel could be touching the line of the box, which means the foot is not entirely outside the box. In leagues using high school rules, a batter would be declared out if his/her foot is touching the plate, but again, contact must be made with the pitch by the bat or otherwise no call would be made.
· A pitch that bounces to the plate cannot be hit. FALSE in baseball and fast pitch softball, but this is TRUE in slow pitch softball.
· The batter does not get first base if hit by a pitch after it bounces. FALSE. No such rule exists. The pitch hitting the ground means nothing.
· The ball is dead on a foul tip. FALSE. The term “foul tip” is often misused. The definition of foul tip is, “A batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher’s hands and is legally caught.” If the ball is not caught, it is a foul ball and the play is dead. However, a foul tip remains a live ball just like a swinging strike.

Running to First
· The batter-runner must turn to his/her right after over-running first base. FALSE. The batter may turn in either direction and not be in jeopardy of being tagged out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, attempts to advance to second base.
· The batter may not overrun first base when he/she gets a base-on-balls without liability to be put out. FALSE in professional rules baseball and all softball codes, but TRUE in high school baseball.
· The batter-runner is always out if he/she runs outside the running lane after a bunted ball. FALSE. The batter is declared out only if he/she is outside the running lane and interferes with the defense fielding the ball or receiving a throw at first base.

Base Running
· A runner is out if he slaps hands or high-fives other players after a homerun is hit over the fence. FALSE. A runner is only out if a player (who is not a runner) or coach physically assists a player in running the bases. A high-five or any other congratulatory gesture is not considered a physical assist.
· Tie goes to the runner. FALSE. It doesn’t go to the fielders, either. The umpire must judge either the runner beating the throw or the throw beating the runner. Ties do not exist.
· The runner gets the base he/she is going to plus one on a ball thrown out-of-play. FALSE. The “1+1” myth that is often quoted does not exist in the rules. The runner is awarded two bases from time of pitch if the ball thrown out of play is the first play made on the infield. If the throw is the second or subsequent play made from the infield or is any throw from the outfield, then the runner is awarded two bases from the last base the runner occupied from the time of throw. This means, for example, if a runner is returning to first base to tag up on a caught fly ball and the fielder throws the ball out of play, the runner would be awarded third base.
· Anytime a coach touches a runner, the runner is out. FALSE. Again, the runner must be physically assisted with his/her base running to be declared out.
· Runners may never run the bases in reverse order. FALSE. In some cases, the runner is required to run the bases in reverse order, such as when he/she must tag up on a particularly long fly ball that is caught. The only time the runner is declared out is when he/she is doing something to deliberately confuse the defense or is making a travesty of the game.
· If the runner doesn’t slide on a close play, he/she is out. FALSE in most written rule sets including high school rules. The runner only needs to seek to avoid contact, and if he/she can do so without sliding, then that is allowed. Contact between the runner and the defense can still occur and no call may not be made. However, if a runner is judged by the umpire to have maliciously contacted a defensive player, that runner can be called out and ejected from the game. Some local leagues do have special slide rules for some age groups, but again, these rules are not written in either professional baseball or high school rules books.
· The runner is safe when hit by a batted ball while touching a base. FALSE in baseball, but TRUE in softball. In baseball, the runner is declared out if struck by a batted ball at any time as long as it is untouched by a fielder or has passed an infielder (not including the pitcher) and no other infielder has a chance of fielding the ball. If the runner is hit by a batted ball while on base during an infield fly situation as determined by the infield fly rule, then he/she is not out, but if he/she is off a base and this occurs, then both the runner and the batter are out. In softball, the runner is allowed to remain on base and will not be declared out if struck by a batted ball. However, in all codes, if the runner intentionally interferes in any way for any reason, he/she will be declared out.
· A runner is out if he runs out of the baseline to avoid a fielder who is fielding a batted ball. FALSE. The runner is required to avoid a fielder who is fielding a batted ball. If he/she does not avoid a fielder who is fielding a batted ball, he/she will be declared out. The runner is only ruled out for being out of the baseline when he/she is trying to avoid being tagged.
· It is always okay for a runner to contact a fielder who is standing in the baseline. FALSE. As stated above, the runner is required to avoid a fielder who is fielding a batted ball. The baseline does not belong to the runner. If the fielder is not fielding a batter ball and contact occurs between he/she and the runner or if the runner has to alter his/her path, then defensive interference (obstruction) is called.
· Runners may not advance when an infield fly is called. FALSE. An infield fly ball as determined by the infield fly rule is a live ball, and runners may advance after tagging up when the ball is caught. They may also advance without tagging up if the ball is not caught.
· Two runners may not touch the same base at the same time. FALSE, however one of them is in jeopardy of being put out. If a runner is forced to advance to the next base, the lead runner is out if tagged. If the lead runner is not forced, then the trail runner is out if tagged.

Part 2
 

Fair/Foul, Foul Tips, and Others
· If a batted ball hits the plate, it’s a foul ball. FALSE. Home plate is in fair territory just as all the other bases. A batted ball that hits first or third base is a fair ball, and home plate is no different.
· If a player’s feet are in fair territory when the ball is touched, it is a fair ball. FALSE. It is the position of the ball that determines whether it is fair or foul. If a fielder has his feet in fair territory but reaches over the foul line and touches the ball in foul territory, then it would be a foul ball.
· A runner may not steal on a foul tip. FALSE. As previously stated in the section entitled, “The Batter”, the ball is live on a foul tip. Runners may steal because the ball is live.
· If a fielder holds a fly ball for two seconds, it is a catch. FALSE. A catch is determined when a fielder has complete control of the ball in his/her hand or glove. Time is not a factor in an umpire’s judgment in determining a catch.
· If a fielder catches a fly ball and then falls over the outfield fence, it is a homerun. FALSE. This is an out. However, if a fielder enters dead ball territory with the ball, all runners will be awarded on base unless the catch was the third out.
· The ball is dead anytime the ball hits an umpire. FALSE. A thrown ball that hits an umpire is live. A batted ball that hits an umpire is dead unless the ball was deflected off a defensive player or has passed a defensive player other than the pitcher.
· The home plate umpire can overrule the other umpires at anytime. FALSE. No umpire (including the home plate umpire or umpire-in-chief) has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by another umpire within the limits of the respective duties as outlined in the rules. An umpire may request help from another umpire in a decision, but ultimately it is the requesting umpire who will make the final decision.

Appeals
· It is a force out when a runner is called out for not tagging up on a fly ball. FALSE. Failing to retouch is not a force. If a runner is called out for the third out on appeal for not retouching (tagging up), any preceding runs score unless the appeal is made before the runners cross the plate.
· An appeal on a runner who misses a base cannot be a force out. FALSE. A runner who missed a base they were forced to and is properly appealed for the third out can nullify any runs the would have scored.
· No run can score when a runner is called out for the third out for not tagging up. FALSE. If a runner is called out for the third out on appeal for not retouching (tagging up), any preceding runs score unless the appeal is made before they cross the plate.
· You must tag the base with your foot on a force out or appeal. FALSE. Any portion of the fielder’s body or glove may be used to touch the base. Even if the fielder has the ball in his/her hand and touches the base with his/her empty glove, an out would still be recorded.
· The ball must always be returned to the pitcher before an appeal can be made. FALSE. Appeals may either be made at anytime during a live ball by touching a base that a runner failed to tag up on a fly ball or for missing a base. In high schools rules, the defense may also make an appeal on a runner during a dead ball. Any defensive player or coach can to this by requesting time and asking the umpire to appeal the infraction. In any case, an appeal must be made before the next pitch or play.

Pitching
· The ball is always dead on a balk. FALSE in professional baseball and softball, but TRUE in high school baseball. In high school baseball, the ball is immediately dead, and all runners will advance one base. If the ball is pitched and the batter hits it, play does not continue. In professional baseball, a balk is a delayed dead ball, and the batter may hit the pitch. If he/she does and all runners and the batter advance successfully to the next base, then the balk is ignored. If they do not, then play is stopped, the runners advance one base from their position at the time of the pitch and the batter is returned to the plate to continue his at-bat with the previous ball and strikes count. In softball, the term “balk” is replaced with the term “illegal pitch”. In softball, an illegal pitch is still a delayed dead ball and the batter may attempt to hit the pitch. In softball, after play ends, the batting team may elect to either take the illegal pitch penalty and have the batter return to the plate to continue his/her at-bat, or they may take the result of the play.
· With no runners on base, it is a ball if the pitcher starts his windup and then stops. FALSE in professional baseball, but TRUE in high school baseball and softball. In professional baseball, this is just a no-pitch.
· The pitcher must come to a set position before a pick-off throw. FALSE. The pitcher must come set only before pitching to the batter. This is a baseball rule only as pickoffs are not used in softball.
· The pitcher must step off the rubber before a pick-off throw. FALSE. The pitcher may remain in contact with the rubber during a pick-off. This is a baseball rule only as pickoffs are not used in softball.
· The pitcher’s foot must remain in contact with the rubber until the release of the ball. FALSE. Coaches teaching the proper technique encourage pushing off the rubber during the pitch. In softball, the pivot foot (the one doing the pushing) must drag and remain in contact with the ground.
· In softball, the pitcher must release the ball after the first time it passes the hip toward the plate. FALSE. By rule, the pitcher is not allowed to make two complete revolutions on a pitch, but starting behind the hip, wind milling, and releasing the ball is not two complete revolutions.

Internet Sources
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info...s/foreword.jsp
www.eteamz.com/baseball/rules/obr/myths
http://www.eteamz.active.com/softbal...all_myth’s.doc


Printed Sources
2008 National Federation of High Schools Baseball Rules Book
2008 National Federation of High Schools Softball Rules Book

With no runners on base, it is a ball if the pitcher starts his windup and then stops. FALSE in professional baseball, but TRUE in high school baseball and softball. In professional baseball, this is just a no-pitch

can you tell me where this is located in the FED book?

thanks in advance

Good list, I like it. Hopefully people will actually read it. ;)

You should probably go into a little more detail here and explain WHEN the the batter has to vacate the batter's box.

I would change this a bit to reflect the current OBR interpretation that a runner hit by an untouched batted ball is not out only if they are directly behind the fielder that let the ball get past them. I think it was Jim Evans that said a runner still has a duty to avoid a batted ball.

Am I reading this right?
Isn't this the exception to a hit baserunner being out?

The base is a "safe haven" only on an Infield Fly. Otherwise, the "normal" rules about bing hit by the batted ball apply.

I wasn't speaking to on or off the base.

I think it is just a badly structured sentence. We all know what it's trying to say but the people he is posting it for certainly do not and may be confused.


OP

This reads OUT IF
1. "untouched by a fielder" OR
2. "has passed an infielder..."

1 could be wrong and 2 is usually wrong




Should be changed to:

"The runner is safe when hit by a batted ball while touching a base. FALSE in baseball... In baseball, the runner is declared out if struck by a batted ball at any time unless it is first touched by a fielder or has passed an infielder (not including the pitcher) and no other infielder has a chance of fielding the ball. ."

This makes it usually right

At the risk of being bombarded with all sorts of criticism, I'll say it anyway. I'm also not trying to stir up trouble. First of all, ties do in fact exist whether or not you want to believe it. The ball reaching F3 and the B/R touching the base at the same time (a TIE) are mutually exclusive events meaning one is NOT dependent on the other. Having said that, for an OUT to occur, the ball must reach F3 BEFORE the B/R touches 1B. See 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: Not at the same time or not after, but BEFORE. Having said that, if the ball and the B/R reach 1B at the same time, meaning that to the umpire's vision, he cannot perceive any difference between the two, you have a PHYSICAL as opposed to a rule book, tie. The rule book does not address the word tie, so from that perspective the statement is true. TIE in the normal sense of the word for ages has meant a simultaneous arrival of the ball and the B/R at the base. Nobody can argue that, we've all heard it since we were kids. So, if you follow the logic of a tie and combine it with the written rule, a tie does in fact go to the runner because the ball did not arrive at 1B BEFORE the runner touched 1B.

All right guys, have at it. But before you do, be prepared to back up your opinions with fact. Someone else's rule book or OPINION doesn't qualify.

BigSteve,

Since you have obviously done a much more "in depth" study of this question than any umpire has ever done in the history of baseball, perhaps you could clarify your "groundbreaking conclusion" in the light of the rule language found in 8-4-2i & j.

Thank you for indulging my request.

JM

(P.S. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.)

You're quite right. He's a troll combining BigUmp56's moniker with San Diego Steve's.

We all know that ties go to the umpire, but clearly there is a timing difference in the rulebook between getting to first and getting to all other bases.

Funny I've had close calls but there don't seem to be ties in my games. :D

No one said ties do not exist. They said the "tie goes to the runner myth" does not exists. Is there room for judgement?
No one disputes the "before rule" being discussed above. As JM hinted at, there is another rule(s) in the book that is in direct conflict with your statement above. I am surprised you fail to mention it, as self appointed rulebook interpreter. You may know a bit about rule 7 and the runner, but why do you fail to play defense?
If A in bold is true, then B in bold cannot be true. Your statement crumbles under the weight of your logic. The only thing you have proven, is this blather of intelligent form defies common sense. Nobody can argue against that! You do not understand it. Please let me know if the meaning of at the same time is before the ball arrives or after the ball arrives? 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? 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.
Gee, handcuffed and I still kicked your ***. Crawl back under your rock. Someone boo this guy! 1,2,3 BOOOOO!

Tie goes to whom?
 

8-2-8...A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it BEFORE he is out.

Put the two together. One defines the out (7-4-1F), the fielder touching the base with the ball, or tagging the runner BEFORE the runner tags the base, right? 8-2-8 Defines WHEN the runner has ACQUIRED THE BASE; if he touches it before he is out. It doesn't say he has acquired it if he touches the base before the fielder has touched the base or him. It says BEFORE HE IS OUT If the runner and the ball reach at the "same" time, the runner is NOT OUT because of 7-4-1f. BECAUSE HE IS NOT OUT, HE HAS ACQUIRED THE BASE BEFORE HE IS OUT AND THEREFORE HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8-2-8.

Everyone has their own philosophy, and I respect that. I was trying to point out that the way the rule is written, a tie is theoritically possible and that 7-4-1f governs the OUT.

I'm not some self indulgent troll looking to put anybody in their place. I'm trying to address a statement I believe to be false and I backed it up with the written rule, and I got challenged by dash_riprock with another rule. I took that rule along with the original rule, put them together and showed in a logical way that 8-2-8 is not a way to refute 7-4-1f.

I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion. Just read my argument and tell me if you think me logic is wrong. I suspect that there will be many of you who will read it and agree that my logic is correct. Whether or not you are willing to state that here, I don't know. I would like to think that at least one of you would.

After re-reading my OP, I admit I came on too strong, and I apologize for that. I didn't personally attack anyone, although some of you seem intent on attacking me. I can handle it.

A perceived tie is always an out. The umpire will be watching the base to determine the time of touch by the runner, and listening for the ball hitting the glove to determine the time of catch by the fielder. Light travels much faster than sound, and will arrive at the umpire's eyes before the sound gets to his ears. Therefore, on a perceived tie, the catch occurred first.

You don't have to tell me that light is much faster that sound, I'm an engineer. Your statement doesn't answer the question. I didn't mention sight or sound. When you are 10 feet away looking at a play and can see the base touch and the catch by F3 with wind and noise, you can't perceive a time difference in your head of less than 1/100th of a second, which is about how fast sound will travel 10 feet, provided you are at sea level.

I asked you to fault my logic. It doesn't make any difference what you assume. If there is a "tie", similar to a "dead heat" in a horse race where they cannot determine a winner with available scientific technology, is my logic wrong? That's all I asked. You didn't address it. Obviously you want to justify your position. Fine.

Yes.

I've seen this written several times, but the statement certainly isn't true in a general sense, and not always true in a baseball sense.

Here's a specific non-baseball instance: A spectator at a top-fuel drag race, if positioned in the grandstands along the finish line extended, can easily see which car is first to the line, even if the two cars are separated by just one foot or less. So he can correctly order the times at which the two cars crossed the line with a resolution of about 2 or 3 milliseconds. Two circumstances are key to this: the spectator is using only one sense (vision), and the events are not isolated: both events as well as their timing are predictable from the path and velocities of the cars. Contast that to the NBA where the timing of a shot is predictable, but shot clock buzzer isn't.

A second instance: Humans can discern the direction from which sounds have emanated. The primary mechanism depends on the difference in arrival time at our two ears. We routinely accurately judge not only the order of arrival, but the magnitude of the difference, at 1 millisecond or better. In fact, in a quiet room, for a sound source nearly equidistant to the two ears, we can order the arrival times within a few tens of microseconds! Once again, only one sense is employed (hearing). It is also important that the sounds reaching our two ears have nearly identical waveforms. On the other hand, surprise is not a problem.

In baseball, when the play at first is a race between a fielder and the runner, we can tell who arrived first if the the feet are separated by a 3 or 4 inches--about a third of a foot or approximately 10 milliseconds. Again only vision is used, and there is no surprise.

Now on to what I suspect may be controversial:
For a play at first involving a thrown ball, a good umpire will have seen the ball being thrown (he needs to know if it is a quality throw), and will, whether he knows it or not, have formed an estimate of when it will arrive at first base. He can also see when the runner is approaching the base. The two events are fairly predictable. Then, if he knows the play will be close, and he uses his eyes to check for a pulled foot, and his ears to hear the sound of the foot striking the bag and the ball hitting the glove, he'll be able to do considerably better than 40 milliseconds. There are two different kinds sounds depending on which occurred first. With practice, by identifying the character of the sound, you can tell which occurred first.

Don't believe it? Well, even for a fast runner, 40 milliseconds is more than a foot of travel. Watch enough television replays of close plays at first base, and you'll see that the professional guys call it correctly when there is well less than a foot difference.

More faulty logic
 

TC has adressed concerns with human percerption.
Speed of light and sound have no bearing in a tie.
But indispensible when determining the easy call, safe or out.

The umpire watches the base because it is easier to gauge the touch with our eyes, than to gauge with our ears. When that moment occurs, it easier to make a distinction on whether or not the ball has already been caught and vice-versa. It would be more difficult to watch the catch and then look for the touch of the foot on the base. This has also been verified on the baseball diamond. It is not news. Although the ears provide additional info to the brain, no umpire I know relies on his ears to verify a catch. Again, already address by TC.

One MLB problem
 

Its not that I don't believe it if the stadium were completely empty. I find it hard to believe when the stadium is completely full and the home crowd yells safe or out moments before the ball makes a sound in the mitt. I find it hard to believe, a MLB umpire will hear every catch in these realistic conditions.

An umpire has to rely on more than hearing, vision is a good indicator. One good eye can move or jump many times in .04 secs and provide more value than both ears combined. Sorry, but at my age, I can't hear ****, so you must speak loudly in a quiet room. Sorry, will you repeat that. I can't hear you. But I would never dare umpire if I knew I were blind as a bat. Eyesight allows you to see foot hit the bag. Then hearing confirms what you already knew.

Umpires are as bug-eyed as you can get. Whatever detail one eye can capture, two eyes focused on the same spot always improve the details of sight within our brain. Now imagine an umpire with an ability to focus or shift eyes, called rapid eye movement, independently of one focal point. The improvement in vision would not only be twice as significant, it would exponentially increase, by a power of two {no pun intended}. Known as stereoscopic vision, vision of simple 2-D image would maginify the 3-D aspects of depth necessary for our brain to accurately judge the time of touch and time of catch together.

And to sum it all up, I have an out. (Dave - your post was really interesting.)

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.

Ankles strapped too?
 

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

Is there an F across my forehead or something? :D
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.

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

What types of other information do they use?

OK I will ask this again

With no runners on base, it is a ball if the pitcher starts his windup and then stops. FALSE in professional baseball, but TRUE in high school baseball and softball. In professional baseball, this is just a no-pitch

Where in the FED book is this located. I cannot find it and need some help

I think you've missed the fairly simple logic. The stated rule says BR is out IF tag is BEFORE BRs touch of the base. A tie does not meet this simple criteria therefore it is not an out.


The rule makers had no need to mention "tie" The simple logic of Tag needing to be before the touch or as 7.08e says runner must touch before tag.
In ether case the "tie" is accounted for as safe or out, no do overs as you accused 56 of promoting.

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

By rule?
 

RIF, 0-fer-4 Is it snowing there? How is the powder?
SAump accused 56 of promoting safes in posts #8, #17, #20 and #28; not outs, nor do-overs, rockhead.
SAump hinted 56 would be better off promoting do-overs in posts #14 and #29, rather than safes, boulderbrain.
SAump was the promoting safes or outs, over do-overs in posts #14 and #29, not 56, agateface.
SAump read your post about "ties going to the umpire" in post #11 and #35 and wonders why CO ump can't follow along, cementlips.

Someone boo CO ump! 1, 2, 3. BOOOO!

Thanks, Co ump, for another good and pointed post. ...Al

Despite the logic, and findings of research....
 

Some think this horse isn't dead yet:eek:

AR

Zebra, I read this whole strand looking for the answer to your original question. Sorry, but I don't have anything definite, either. Although, I think you and I agree that in NFHS it is not a ball; it's nothing. Same as if the pitcher on the rubber drops the ball (And it doesn't cross the foul line); it's a balk if there are runners and no-pitch if there are no runners. This may have been a rule change a few years ago......

Not correct. As previously posted, starting and stopping is a ball in FED with no runners on. Starting and stopping is defined as an illegal pitch in 6-2-4, the penalty for which is given at the end of 6-1-3.

This is NOT the same as dropping the ball, which is addressed separately in 6-1-4.

How about 6-2-2c ...failing to pitch or make or attempt a play, including a legal feint, within 20 seconds after he has received the ball.
PENALTY:The batter shall be awarded one ball.

Do you honestly call that an ball???

If the pitcher starts and stops with no runners on, probably not. Though I have never seen it.

I was just answering the question.

You do what's expected in your neighborhood. The rule is well known here and when an F1 starts and starts EVERYONE begins yelling "that's a ball."

Yes, we enforce it.

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.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Fed rules do not not conflict on this issue.

I'm referring to Fed 2005 book, the rule hasn't changed but I'm sure the reference is within one or two letters and easily found.

8-4-1f is referring to BR only and states that the tag or touch must beat the BR's touch of first.
Therefore by rule, a tie at first is Safe because the tag did not beat the touch, which is exactly what 56 was referring.

8-4-2j is referring to runners (Not BR) and states that the runner must beat the tag.
Therefore by rule, a tie at any base (except BR at first) is an out because runner did not beat the tag.
So "Tie goes to the runner" is a true statement by rule regarding BR at first, but not a true statement regarding all other runners.
I don't know if the difference between BR and other runners is purposeful but it's undoubtedly there.

Now if you say ties aren't possible or that you ignore 8-4-1f then those are different issues. But to argue with 56's original assertion is foolishness.

No. The troll's assertion is foolishness. This is why Evans always asks inquiring umpires if they are discussing day games or night games.

You are reading too much into the rules. In neither case is a tie mentioned or intended. It is one or the other, the runner beat the throw or the throw beat the runner. No third option exists. As Evans has said, "One thing happens before the other, always. It is your job to determine which one it was. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be umpiring."

Ties are mentioned only by whining rats or umpires practicing mental masturbation.

Sometimes you have to understand the game.

How do you know what was intended when that rule was written with those words? Are you saying the rules makers were too stupid to think there might be a tie?


That's just plain ignorant. The word "tie" is a word for a reason. "ties" happen, and in this case the rules account for it.
The rules account for it so why throw a hissyfit if someone mentions it?


Evans is wrong! And I can determine before, after or tie and in each of the three options I know exactly how to apply the rules because the rules are very clear for each of the THREE options.
If the rule isn't clear on third option please explain.

I've never suggested that any umpire use the word "tie" during game management, but to deny that a tie could occur shows a real lack of intelligence.

I love the way you always throw the last line insult in there.

I'm afraid you are the one that is failing to understand.

You're hung up on the fact that the rules don't mention "tie"
What purpose would there be in mentioning "tie" in the rules?

Ties are accounted for by using very simple logic.

I know you understand the logic.
For an out
Tag must beat BR's touch at first. IF it was a tie then the tag did not beat BR's touch, therefore SAFE.
So yes, you use judgement "Did the tag beat the touch?" yes or no it's one or the other.
So if it's a tie then the tag did not beat the touch, therefore safe.

What I'm not advocating is that on a banger at 1st you even think about "tie"
You detemine did the tag beat the touch or not and make your call.
On that I have to believe we agree.
In a theoretcal discussion where a sitch is presented that says "there's a tie at first, what's the call?"
Then instead of hurling insults the simple answer is SAFE.

If the sitch is "There's a tie at 2nd, what's the call?" The simple answer is OUT

What's the big deal?

No offence taken.

School is murder. I've heard 2nd year university is the filter year, so hopefully things get easier next year.

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.

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

Stupid? No. They understood what they meant. The runner beats the throw or the throw beats the runner. Had they wanted a third option do you think they were too stupid to include it?


No, the rules do not account for it. The rules do not mention it. Ties were invented by fans and rats. After all this time, if a tie was to be considered it would have been added to the rule book


The one authority on the rules who has researched the rules and their intent for over 30 years, who has had access to early notes and writings of the rulesmakes and who, with MLB's blessings has proveded interpretations for MLB umpires is wrong and you are right? My goodness we are full of ourselves aren't we?

To insist one does occur show a real lack of understanding of physics and the rules.




No. "Ties are accounted for by umpires who don't understand the proper interpretation of the rules.


Should I ever hear that sentence spoken aloud, my thought would be "must be a coach."

Obviously there's no big deal for an amateur umpire who knows the rule interpretations better than Jim Evans.

Garth, you're wasting valuable electrons on this über troll (as Tee would have it -- nice term, Tee!).

As Garth said the rule-makers were not stupid. You are either out or safe.

If we go by what you recommend then in effect we have a "do-over" because there was a tie.

In our Profession these close plays are not called TIES, they are called "coin-flip" calls and there are factors we should consider.

If F6 goes deep into the hole and makes a spectacular play and the play at first is a "coin-flip" then we reward the defense.

Conversely, if B1 hits a routine ground ball to F4 and B1 is busting it out of the box and F4 mis-plays the ball and turns what should have been a routine play into a "coin-flip" we reward the offense.

This site is still valuable and there are new posters or young umpires trying to learn and the word TIE is not contained in any rule nor should it be.

Pete Booth

Garth, you know as well as I that my statement Re:Evans was only in response to whether a tie was possible or not. To take it out of context and imply or state that I feel I know rules better than Evans is dishonest and beneath you.

Why is using the word "tie" like putting garlic in a vampires nose to you guys?

You are so worked up over the word "tie" that you are being intellectually dishonest or you indeed did fail your logic class.

You go to a golf tourney and they have a Beat the Pro fundraiser for a hundred bucks.
The rules say if you "beat the pro" (get closer to the pin than him) you win a grand. There's nothing in the rules about a tie, no need. The rules say if I beat him I win. If we're both 6' 1" from the pin a TIE do you think I get the grand? Of course not, I didn't beat him. He didn't beat me but that wasn't the deal I had to beat him.
Now if it was a "If the pro beats you, you lose" fundraiser it's a different story, now if we tie I win. Words mean things. Still nothing in the rules about a tie but there was a tie and there was no confusion as to the ruling or who wins or doesn't win the grand despite the fact that the word "tie" never showed up in the rules.

You get the concept, it's just the garlic filling your head with hatred that has you in denial

Two questions
1. do you contend that it is a physical impossibility for the tag of the base and the touch by the BR to be at the same time?
If so so be it. I wouldn't want my son in your physics class but so be it.

2. If it is possible, what do the rules say about it?

I have no hatred. I have no emotion invested in this or you. The difference is I understand the proper interpretation of a rule and apparently you do not.

You woud rather you son enroll in a physics class that does not properly teach the probability of these two things happening at exactly the same time?

The rules do not include consideration for any such improbable event. The rules provide for two possibilities: The ball beats the runner, the runner beats the ball. The rule makers did not intend for any third option.

Pete Pete Pete
You have failed to read or comprehend a single one of my posts.
See post 35 specifically

By RULE the tag at first must beat the BR's touch. IF it was a tie or as you say a coinflip then the tag did not beat the touch therefore SAFE.
Where did I ever propose "do over"?

Let me say FINALLY someone of reason, even though you did accuse me of "do overs"

Back in post 11 I said Ties are for umpires. Meaning in a very practical way we can rule whichever way for the very reasons you just stated, or just simply to get an out if we're so inclined.

After that some of the regulars jumped on 56 for using the word tie. Now I have no idea who 56 is and I have no axe to grind and I thought it bush to start namecalling because the guy stated a theoretical truth.
I jumped on board with 56 and defended the position with rules. The response of course was more name calling.
I figured if these guys were half the teacher they purport to be they would use this as a teaching opportunity, but instead they could only hurl insults.

Theoretically my position is very sound and I stand by it, theoretically.
Practically, ties or coin flips belong to the umpire as I stated in the very beginning.

You're the only one after all these posts who gave practical on the field application to this theoretcal situation.
To which I have to say I 100% adhere to. It's the advice and teaching I've received from the beginning and what I pass down to those I have the opportunity to mentor

For the BR to be out at first the ball(tag) must beat the runner.
I agree 110%
no ifs ands or buts, Ball beats runner=BR out. No other options Total agreement.

Runner beats ball to any base SAFE no ifs and or buts. 110% of the time, SAFE. Total agreement.
We could be brothers even soul mates we're so much in agreement

Conversely, if ball doesn't beat runner to first, runner is safe. Agreed?

One wants to demonstrate he can extract a meaning unintended in the rule and the other interprets the rule as it was intended.

Easy choice.

You act like this is an absolute rule. It's not. I'll tell you right now: On every "coin-flip" play as you describe, I call the runner out. It's consistent and I don't really care what kind of play a fielder made on the ball. NFHS, NCAA, it doesn't matter.

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.

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

The reason why umpires shouldn't care how remarkable a play was made is that I've seen many umpires kick calls where the runner was safe by a really small amount, but the umpire rewards the great play and calls the runner out. I honestly try not to become a spectator on the truly great plays - I have a job to do.

There are umpires, newer ones especially, who see plays a lot closer than those who have seen these types of plays for years. Calling someone out when they beat the throw by .10 second is not going to win friends and influence people.

But when a play is truly "too close to call" for me, and it does happen once in a great while, I call the runner out. Like I said, it's consistent - and if I can't tell the difference, nobody else without a stop-action camera can either. If there's a 50 percent chance I'm going to be wrong, I'd rather it be when I called an out. Sue me.

Not me. Now I wanna know who the tie goes to in the porn that Bob was referring to.

Trouble maker.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

In the words of my good friend Dave Hensley:

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

"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

http://www.steveaddison.net/wp-conte...ad%20horse.jpg

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.

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.

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

A whale?

We've discovered the problem.

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?

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

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

Wow.

Where's that horse?

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"

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

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

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?)

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.



http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/...tDeadHorse.gif

http://images.southparkstudios.com/m...__image_09.jpg

http://www.steveaddison.net/wp-conte...ad%20horse.jpg

http://coreygilmore.com/blog/wp-cont...dead_horse.jpg

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

Right there on the ground. :D 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 ...

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

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.

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.

And when did I do that?

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.


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


Not necessarily, but correct in this thread.


(Only two pages to go)

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.

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?

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

"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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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

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%