Must the Runner Clearly beat the ball to the bag???

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The problem is that OBR contains two contrary statements. One is 6.05(j):

"A batter is out when...After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, [the batter] or first base is tagged before he touches first base."

By this test, the ball must beat the runner, so a "tie" would go to the runner.

The other is 7.01 (already quoted by dash, above)

"7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out."

By this test, the runner must beat the ball, so a "tie" would result in an out.

This is one of the 237 problems with OBR. By tradition, at every level the test implied in 7.01 is employed on the field: the runner must beat the ball.

FED rules do not contain the contraries: see 8-4-2(j).

I've never understood why UMPIRES really care about this. I mean, this is how it goes:

Me: He's out.

(Coach paddles out to me.)

Coach: Why is he out?

Me: Cause he is.

Coach: Wasn't it a tie?

Me: (Silence.)

Coach: Well?

Me: He's out, let's go.

...

I mean, I'm certainly not going to get into a game of him trying to trip me up. And I will continue to call every single play that's too close to be discerned by the naked eye as an out, as I have the last 20 or so years. And no, I will never get help from a partner, so don't bother asking.

Life goes on.

[hootrgibson]

If it's a tie, call him out, it makes the game go quicker....

Just like Crying, there is no "tieing" in Baseball....

[ozzy6900]

I like Rich's description of a typical incident but I answer differently:

Me: He's out.

(Coach paddles out to me.)

Coach: Why is he out?

Me: Cause he is.

Coach: Wasn't it a tie?

Me: In my judgement, you runner is out, now let's get on with the game.

Coach: What I am asking........

Me: Coach, I told you that in my judgement, he is out! Now, you're not arguing my judgement, are you?

The rest depends on the coach's answer. He was told "in my judgement" so that in itself is a "warning". He was asked if he is arguing my judgement, that is another "warning". Most times, they stop arguing at this point but if he argues, he is gone.

[AAUA96]

My first year as an umpire I asked a coach "Are you questioning my judgment?" He replied "Yes" so I ejected him. 13 years later, my group still laughs at me about the situation - and it comes up in our new umpire class every year to ensure each umpire in our group gets to laugh with (at) me.
I am proud to have provided a leaning experience in my area.

I've never asked a coach that question again - and probably never will.

Walt

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The problem is that OBR contains two contrary statements. One is 6.05(j):

"A batter is out when...After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, [the batter] or first base is tagged before he touches first base."

By this test, the ball must beat the runner, so a "tie" would go to the runner.

The other is 7.01 (already quoted by dash, above)

"7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out."

By this test, the runner must beat the ball, so a "tie" would result in an out.

This is one of the 237 problems with OBR. By tradition, at every level the test implied in 7.01 is employed on the field: the runner must beat the ball.

FED rules do not contain the contraries: see 8-4-2(j).

7.08 (e) "Any runner is out when he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner." supports 7.01, although it does not include the batter/runner.

Therefore, by rule, tie goes to the fielder, except for the batter/runner at first base.

Right.

[jicecone]

"Tie goes to the umpire", his butt is out.

[Texas Aggie]

Notice the rule references:

[the batter] or first base is tagged before he touches first base

and

he touches it before he is out

are NOT inconsistent. The first talks about when the timing of a tag (or base touch), while the second talks about the timing of the out. The out is a (possible) result, but not the equivalent of, a touch/tag.

I'm sure they could be worded better.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

7.08 (e) "Any runner is out when he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner." supports 7.01, although it does not include the batter/runner.

Therefore, by rule, tie goes to the fielder, except for the batter/runner at first base.

Right.

I agree that 7.08 fits with 7.01. They're both inconsistent with 6.05(j), which I've suggested is disregarded in practice. To conclude that "by rule" the situation is clear is to deny the existence of 6.05.

As I read them, 7.08 and 7.01 are more general than 6.05, since they pertain to all runners, not just the batter-runner.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Notice the rule references:



and



are NOT inconsistent. The first talks about when the timing of a tag (or base touch), while the second talks about the timing of the out. The out is a (possible) result, but not the equivalent of, a touch/tag.

I'm sure they could be worded better.

Of course they're inconsistent. They would only be consistent if something other than a tag could cause an out (in a relevant play).

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree that 7.08 fits with 7.01. They're both inconsistent with 6.05(j), which I've suggested is disregarded in practice. To conclude that "by rule" the situation is clear is to deny the existence of 6.05.

As I read them, 7.08 and 7.01 are more general than 6.05, since they pertain to all runners, not just the batter-runner.

Well, 6.05 (j) is only pertinent to the batter/runner, so the rules are inconsistent only with respect to him. 7.08 (e) does not apply to all runners - the batter/runner is excluded.

I agree that 6.05 (j) is disregarded in practice.

[johnnyg08]

The term "batter/runner" piece was added to the rules years after...if what I've read.

I guess if you want longer games and want to give "ties to the runner" you're perpetuating a myth that most umpires on here do not follow...and if that's the case...it might be something to reconsider

[UmpTTS43]

Wow, inconsistencies in the rule book? Go figure.

Bottom line is that the runner has to beat the tag of the base and ties go to the umpire.

[pastordoug]

Even on those bang bang plays in mlb, i have yet to see a "tie" when they are played on slow-motion replay..... Runner either beats the throw or the throw beats him....... Nothing else......

There are no ties and no rule to support that. Although it has made for a rather lengthy post that once again shows the langauge of the FED book could be improved on.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Maybe it's like a Masonic handshake, and not intended for public consumption. I'll just let it go at that. I've not seen it discussed on any site, so I don't want to be the first.

Tie goes to the defense. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I know the Masonic handshakes, as well as the due guards from Entered Apprentice through Master Mason, but I have no idea what the "advanced mechanic" for a virtual dead-heat is on plays at bases. If it's too close to tell the difference between safe and out, out is the default position and has been throughout baseball history.

[cviverito]

Given the contradictory statements in the rules books, old wives tales, rules myths, variance from code to code, and the actual occurrence of a perceived tie not being specifically covered by any of them...quite simply -- the rules book only provide for two decisions: safe or out...I use one simple rule of thumb:

Tie goes to the umpire.