The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 14, 2010, 09:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
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).
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 14, 2010, 10:36am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 14, 2010, 11:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 26
Funny story - at least to others

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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 15, 2010, 04:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 91
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 14, 2010, 11:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 14, 2010, 09:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
"Tie goes to the umpire", his butt is out.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 14, 2010, 10:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,193
Notice the rule references:

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

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 15, 2010, 07:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 15, 2010, 07:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie View Post
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).
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 15, 2010, 08:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 15, 2010, 09:46am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
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
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 15, 2010, 10:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 425
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you can't beat 'em... quit Ch1town Basketball 19 Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:20am
Ever think you could beat a team 2-on-5? Rich Basketball 4 Fri Jan 25, 2008 01:21pm
I was not going to get beat.... eyezen Basketball 3 Fri Dec 28, 2007 01:15pm
Getting beat on fastbreaks? suntzu45 Basketball 17 Thu Feb 02, 2006 09:50pm
Runner hit by batted ball, scoring runner, batter wfwbb Baseball 12 Sat Jul 17, 2004 03:12pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1