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

[ManInBlue]

I agree with JM, a simple "he didn't beat the ball to the bag" or "I have him out" will suffice.

The "there is no tie" is in reference to how to rule on the play. It's not a "rookie" thing. I challenge anyone to find the rule that states that "the tie goes to the runner." You won't, because there "are no ties." Rules state clearly that a runner is out if he, or the bag, is tagged prior to him reaching the base. If they "tie," the base was not tagged prior to him reaching it(or he didn't reach the base PRIOR to it being tagged - depending on if you want the out or not)

We just have to rule - out/safe - period based on what we saw as I stated originally.

Skarecrow, please squash the "tie goes to the runner" myth!!

[kylejt]

Guys, I'm not talking about what you tell a coach. Or, what you teach when you stand up in front of 40 other guys at the start of a season. And I'm not talking about bang-bang.

I'm talking about POW! (Do we not talk about flipping the switch in public?)

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I agree with JM, a simple "he didn't beat the ball to the bag" or "I have him out" will suffice.

The "there is no tie" is in reference to how to rule on the play. It's not a "rookie" thing. I challenge anyone to find the rule that states that "the tie goes to the runner." You won't, because there "are no ties." Rules state clearly that a runner is out if he, or the bag, is tagged prior to him reaching the base. If they "tie," the base was not tagged prior to him reaching it(or he didn't reach the base PRIOR to it being tagged - depending on if you want the out or not)

We just have to rule - out/safe - period based on what we saw as I stated originally.

Skarecrow, please squash the "tie goes to the runner" myth!!

Yeah, I do...I have NEVER called the "tie" safe....Definitely out in my book! I just thought the rule stated "must clearly beat the ball to the bag," but I couldn't find it....Your comment about him not reaching the bag before it was tagged is the proper explanation that I will use....comes close enough to what I was looking for.

Thanks for all the responses....

[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).

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[jicecone]

There is no "tie" in baseball. Just like "No Crying."

The runner, by rule, either beats the ball to the bag or doesn't.

Thats the rule, thats the mechanic and there is no need to have a seminar, symposium, guest speaker, advanced mechanics course or 7 page thread to explain it.

Period