"Tie goes to the runner"

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

What other conclusion is possible?

Old myths die hard.

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[youngblue3]

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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by youngblue3

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.

[youngblue3]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

They aren't that good. Some just like "angles 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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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

I thought it was "angel over distance"?

[UmpJM]

MrUmpire,

I've never even been.

Do tell. It would seem you are suggesting it's taught "differently" now?

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

MrUmpire,

I've never even been.

Do tell. It would seem you are suggesting it's taught "differently" now?

JM

At school it's still the same. It might even be the same at PBUC "finishing school".

But evaluators, in the past two years, have been telling working MiLB umpires to gain distance and angle; and that distance is as important and at times,more important as the angle.

They are playing a perception game. No calls from 60-90 feet away. Get close on first plays...even to the cut out and then worry about second plays.

Managers don't believe umpires make as accurate calls from long distance, regardless of the angle.

[johnnyg08]

I've heard the same thing...they want the base umpires moving almost on the pitch to where a play could occur to gain distance. I'd imagine it's more of an issue in the two man system of course.