That's not a statement, it's an implication. And an interpretation. And a minority one, at that.

What other conclusion is possible?

Old myths die hard.

Are you sure? Mine only has the first part. The second part seems to be an interpretation.

It will never die so long as umpires continue to declare interpretations to be rules 'stated' in the book.

The rule 6.05j leave out the part about the fielder needing to have possession of the ball...so by interpretation...

Not sure if you're serious or not. If so: Really? How's that? You can make a tag without possession of the ball now can you?

Old myths die hard.

[QUOTE=TwoBits;747751].

The proper terminology for a so called "tie" is referred to as the "coin flip" call. IMO, there could be factors involved in determining the "coin flip' call.

Example: Ground ball deep in the hole between second / third. F6 makes a great play and the call is a "coin flip" For the most part you reward the great play by F6. Everyone EXPECTS it.

On the flip side. Slow ground ball to F4 / F6 doesn't matter, F4/F6 instead of charging the ball take their "sweet time" in getting to the ball. B1 busting it out of the box from the get go. F4/F6 turns what should be a routine play into a "coin flip". For the most part you will rule SAFE.

My guess is that the myth "tie goes to the runner" came about at approximately the same time as the "neighborhood play" or when there were no umpires. The teams most likely agreed that "a tie" would in fact go to the runner. When I played and had no umpires that's what we did.

Pete Booth

According to at least one of the proschools, the rules makers distinctly and purposefully did not use the word "tie" in the rulebook as they neither anticipated one, nor wished to encourage one. Rather, the intended implication of "6.05j. Runner or base has to be tagged before the runner touches first base for an out" is not that a tie exists, but that the reverse is also true, that when a runner touches first prior to be tagged, he is safe."

Those who have researched the rules and the rules makers notes and intent say that nothing in the book is meant to convey the existence of a tie. That some think that it does is one of over 200 "errors".

You are correct that old myths, especially the one about a tie, die hard.

Up until 2010 the rule for the "tie" at first and a "tie" on a force had opposing requirements. In 2010 the "force" requirement was changed to match the play at first.

The tag must be before the touch to get an out. Period.

No one is disputing that in theory there cannot be a tie. BUT, if somehow one did happen, the call is "safe".

No matter how hard you try, you cannot logically conclude that a tie is an out. It's just grasping at straws to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Old myths die hard.

I am not saying a tie is an out. I am saying that there was no intention by the rules makers to consider or make provisions for a tie. It does not exist, And that's from choosing to accept a respected researcher, rules expert and school owner over you, which is an easy call.

Old myths, do indeed die hard. But education is the cure.

My question about this whole tread is, if umpires are good enough to determine an "exact tie" why are their ever blown calls?

They aren't that good. Some just like "angels on the head of a pin" discussions.

Especially concidering having possibly judge a "perfect tie" from the middle of the infield in some situations. The chances of that are astronomical.

Rich - not serious. Seriously.

I thought it was "angel over distance"?

Knew it wouldn\'t take long for you to chip in with this.:rolleyes: