1 in 5 wrong? Really?

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not since Connie Mack wore one, at least.

Ah, there was a snappy dresser.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

And I am not being "creative, arbitrary, or subjective". I'm applying OBR Rule 6.05(j) (applicable to runners going into first base) which states: “A batter is out when - after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged BEFORE he touches first base.” BY RULE, ties (i.e., those plays that the human brain cannot make a determination as to which event happened first) go to the runner.

That's not what you said before. You said that it was up to each umpire how to call "ties." Now you want to go by rule, which is a significant improvement.

Unfortunately, you've selected the wrong rule. You're evidently unaware that umpires ignore that clause of 6.05 and instead enforce the standard of 7.01 at all bases: "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out."

As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

[umpjim]

Didn't MLB change the wording of 6.05j this year so the runner or the base has to be tagged before he touches. This makes it the same as 7.08e regarding a forced runner. Both imply a that a tie goes to the runner on a force or play at 1B and the change of 6.05 is noteworthy.

[BSUmp16]

I, too, thought the rule had been changed so that both sections were consistent, but I can't verify that and the current OBR at the MLB website does not reflect a change. But thanks for recognizing the point

Look, I'm aware of the differences between 6.05 and 7.08e as they currently (?) read - 6.05j applies to runners going into 1st and 7.08e applies to runners going into the other bases. 7.08e states that "Any runner is out when he or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base", which is the opposite of 6.05j. I know that. And if UmpJim is correct, I agree it is a significant change.

Even if the two rules still are inconsistent, it doesn't change the basic question. If, under 7.08e, you can't say that the runner touched the base before he was was put out (i.e., before the ball arrived at the base), because the human brain can't physiologically make that determination (see reference to NTSB above), under 7.08e you call him out ("too close to call = out"). Under 6.05j "too close to call" = safe. Now you can ignore the rule (6.05j), as some say they do, but that seems to be a funny position to take for a guy (*cough* mbyron *cough*) who complains that MY position is "arbitrary" or "subjective". Unless you have a consistent approach to those plays, you're the one who will be making calls arbitrarily.

This is what drives fans and sports announcers crazy. On plays that are too close to call sometimes the runner will be out and sometimes he'll be safe - no consistency, which then prompts more agitation for instant replay - which I think will ruin the game.

If you want to avoid continual outbursts about the need for instant replay, one way (not the only way) to do it is to develop a consistent approach to calling those type of plays (which do happen with some frequency - see data cited above) which approach is also consistent with the published rules. Saying "there are no ties in baseball" is just putting your head in the sand and feeding the demand for more and more instant replay.

My final 2 cents. Take your best shot.

[rookieblue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

There you have it. As succinctly as possible. Almost passes the five-word test! And without consulting Hegel or Einstein, either! Kudos to mbyron for his brevity and UmpJM for his erudition.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's awfully highbrow for an umpire site, John. Next we'll have some yahoo debating the Copenhagen interpretation on here!

Why thank you. I think...

As always, I blame the Jesuits.

Since you brought it up, I actually believe all umpires should be given an overview of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I certainly find it useful in umpiring - but don't worry, I'm not going to try to convince anyone else.

Originally Posted by mbyron

...
As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

I would agree with that statement.

But, I would also say that the throw must beat the runner for him to be out. (Despite the new wording in 6.05.)

The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided.

JM

[umpjim]

I think the new wording in 6.05j agrees with what you are saying.

But it's a confusing world out there now.

I recently had a safe on a steal of 3B (Indy league fill in) where the high throw beat R2 but the tag was late and R2's arm had the bag before the tag hit R2's hip. I got to talk to the manager. My seasoned partner advises after the game that when the throw beats the runner it's an out. Well you still gotta make a tag. In that venue,throw beats runner equals out, in MLB with video. tag has to get runner.



Like UmpJM said: " The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided"

[LMan]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Like UmpJM said: " The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided"

Unless you are in Bristol, CT

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

As always, I blame the Jesuits.

The Jesuits taught you Hegel? I guess they'll stoop to anything to avoid teaching that fat, old Dominican...

[BaBa Booey]

Let's not forget that this "data" came from a 2 week sample. Any statistician / econometrician worth their salt will tell you that in the course of an entire baseball season, a 2 week sample is hardly representative of the product as a whole. If you remember, the big reason they have replay now is because in the span of a week there were 3 or 4 missed HR calls, so everyone was up in arms, but then you didn't see another for the next 3 months. In the long run, it all averages out.

Aslo, great points about what ESPN determined was too close or not close enough to count, etc. It's a bunch of nonsense just like the players ranking the umpires.

[LMan]

But...after the story, ESPN asked Joe Morgan (aka former umpire) for his opinion on the results. If that's not credibility, I don't know what is.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I used to be around the Giants when Morgan worked as an analyst on their broadcasts.

There is no cheaper, more discourteous, more unprofessional character in the game than that troubled, little man. The people inside the organization absolutely detested him. Longtime announcer Hank Greenwald elected to broadcast only radio games, and eventually left the Giants out of a refusal to work with the jerk. He abused and demeaned everyone from the elevator operator to the press room waitress to the press box attendant to the ...

When Very Little Joe had lunch in the press room, he was always alone, and he never left a tip. He carries that practice everywhere. His favorite line to any skycap, server, valet: "Sorry, I don't have any change."

The pisspot used to like to go into the Giants' clubhouse and use the workout and shower facilities. The players hated him and resented him so much that he had to be told to stay the hell out of there unless he was in his role as an announcer. And since he never does any homework as an announcer, that meant that he never came back at all.

There is no first-ballot Hall of Famer with Morgan's numbers. The only first-ballot Hall of Famer with a five-year prime was Sandy friggin' Koufax! How How Very Little Joe achieved that distinction with his lone 100-RBI campaign and his two .300 seasons, I will never fully understand. His utter bankruptcy of character is apparent to all that observe him, and are forced to deal with him, yet he has a somewhat glowing reputation among the general public. That friendly, smiling, fun-loving demeanor is as phony as anyone in public life.

I love the fact that he's a constant source of idiocy in his role as a commentator. At least there's that.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by LMan

But...after the story, ESPN asked Joe Morgan (aka former umpire) for his opinion on the results. If that's not credibility, I don't know what is.

Hey LMan, you been gone for a while. Where you been, sarcasm camp?