"Tie goes to the runner"
 

I was the one who posted the recent "Rules Myths" update on here, and every year at this time I'm trying to improve it.

I've been thinking about the myth in the title of this post and if I've really explained it to the letter of the rule:

Tie goes to the runner. FALSE. It doesn’t go to the fielders, either. The umpire must judge either the runner beating the throw or the throw beating the runner. Ties do not exist.

All the vets are familiar with the wording of OBR rule 7.08e:

Any runner is out when...He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

FED uses similar wording.

The wording "is tagged BEFORE he touches the next base" has been widely interpretted as "Tie goes to the runner".

Is this the correct interpretation, vets?

Granted, in my last umpteen years of officiating, I have never judged a tie, and doubt that I ever will. However, should the "myth" in the title really be considered a myth?

There's no tie in baseball. Umpires make decisions.

i agree with both of the above. if it LOOKS like a tie, then one would rule the ball didn't beat the runner to the bag, and therefore the runner is safe.

but it's never ACTUALLY a tie. you're talking about two random events, and the probability that they happen at EXACTLY the same time is zero.

John,

That is entirely incorrect.

Now you're kinda' new, so you can be excused.

TwoBits has been around long enough that he should simply know better, and he has NO excuse and should be ashamed of himself. Plus, I thought we already covered this, TwoBits. Weren't you paying attention?

Again, entirely incorrect. For your "penance" (and edification, of course) read the following thread. Yep, the whole damn thing. All 135 posts. Then you'll never make this mistake again.

http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...-part-1-a.html

You're welcome. ;)

JM

I don't know what makes an event "random," but simultaneity is possible within the time frame of human perception. Events occurring within about .04 seconds of each other are not discriminable by the human eye.

At the level of quantum physics, you run into uncertainty effects, and so have no physical basis on which to say that simultaneity is (physically) impossible.

The FED wording and the OBR wording are, I think different.

I know that OBR had the literal reading of "safe" on BR at first and "out" on other forced runners (or the other way around). They changed it a couple of years ago so that "safe" is the correct "test answer" on any tie.

In the real world, call what you see and don't see a tie.

Then there is the theory that if you hear the smack of the glove at the instant you see the touch of the bag, and because sound travels slower than light, and because as already stated "Events occurring within about .04 seconds of each other are not discriminable by the human eye........and yadi yadi yada....................

I still have an out.

I was taught early on that "whackers" are outs.

Scientifically, watching (at the speed of light) the BR's foot hit 1B and hearing (at the speed of sound) the ball hit the glove are events happening at two very different speeds, and if they are received by you at the precisely the same time, then the ball hit the glove first...the BR is out.

jicecone types at the speed of light; I, at the speed of sound.

rcaverly,

Regardless, I am sure Sir Isaac would be proud of you both!

And I don't think he even played baseball.

Nice to see some umpires understand the rules.

JM

Hey! DON"T EVER ACCUSE ME OF HAND-PECKING THE KEYS QUICKLY.

Actually, is was truly one event happening before another because two fingers, (one from each hand) pressing keys, will never be construed as typing.

But thanks for the compliment anyway.

So what you are saying is, "Quit overthinking it, and call it the same way you've been calling it for umpteen years."

I can live with that.

And before I inadvertently start another 135 post message, will a moderator please lock this thread? Thanks. :)

TwoBits,

Now that you have regained your senses, I would like to "take back" those nasty things I said about you above.

JM

First - those who say "there are no ties in baseball" are simply reciting a platitude. There are ties everywhere in the known universe and the laws of physics do not cease to exist on the baseball diamond.

In every instance involving 2 different events there are 3 different things that could happen: A occurs before B; A occurs after B; A and B occur at the same time (a tie). Even though there are 3 possibilities, the rules of baseball give you, as an umpire, only 2 choices: safe or out. In THAT sense, there are no ties in baseball.

However, if you define a "tie" as the equivalent of "too close to call", an ESPN study determined that in MLB there is, on average, at least 1 play every 6 games that is too close to call even with the aid of instant replay!

So while you can argue whether the OBR states that ties go to the runner (it does), and you can disagree on how to make the practical decision on the field when a play is too close to call, it is indisputable that there are ties (plays too close to call) in baseball.

As proof positive, check out the last 40 seconds of this video:

YouTube - Goofy "How To Play Baseball" :D

Tell me why we are still debating this "Tie goes to the runner" for the 4th time since last season? Every year we deal with this idiotic myth yet it keeps coming around like a boil on your butt!

There are no ties in baseball because all ties go to the umpire and the umpire always calls the out!

ozzy,

It's kind of like herpes. It may go "dormant" for awhile, but there's always the risk it will "flare up" again.

JM

If a play is that close I call them out. I had a varsity coach tell me a story last year about an older veteran umpire who worked one of their games. There was a banger at first and the ump called the runner out. The first base coach said "C'mon, tie goes to the runner." The ump told him "You've been horribly misinformed son, ties go to the umpire and I called him out." The first base coach busted out laughing. Some coaches do actually have a sense of humor.

You may not have judges a tie and perhaps you may never actually expereinced a tie but in terms of sight and sound, and the visceral faults in each, "ties" are a fact of umpiring life.

The question is how to you adjudicate a tie when you believe you have one?

"Reward The Better Play". ;)

Forunate for this umpire. Foolish one-liners more often irritate than humor, cause unneeded attention to the play, the call and the umpire and, in the end, too often makes the clown officiating look like a clown.

Only short the red rubber nose and oversized floppy shoes. :(

Wow - that's two in a row in which I completely agree with "Simply the Best" Should that make me worried?

Tie goes to the umpire.

All this specificity. All this detail. All this predicate logic. Impressive.

Are you sure that "OBR states that ties go to the runner "?

Ah, but we're NOT humans. We're umpires. We are expected to make rulings within that .04 second timeframe. :D

JJ

Get an out. Just be consistent with it.

OK gentlemen, we are way past goofy now.

Exactly. There are ties...we just don't call them ties, we call them "outs."

It always reminds me of a story an umpire associate used to tell about this guy who had a banger at 1st base and called, "Two!!!" really loudly. When the puzzled 1st base coach asked what he meant by "Two!!!" the umpire told him, "too damn close to call!"

Actually, that was a quote from Jocko Conlon, the great Hall of Fame umpire. Jocko was behind the plate and the count was one ball and one strike. Next pitch comes in, appears to shave the corner of the plate, and the umpire shouts 'Two!' The batter says, 'Two, what?' Ump replies: "Too close to call." Great story.

Yep - 6.05j. Runner or base has to be tagged before the runner touches first base for an out. If the runner and tag/touch occur "at the same time" (a "tie") then the tag/touch didn't occur before = runner's safe.

I know, it's like on Sliders with the alternate parallel universe. :p

Wow, that sounds really similar to the story this associate used to tell about this base umpire who did the same thing on the bases! Incredible!:rolleyes:

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:

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.

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.

MrUmpire.

Gotcha'. Thanks. Interesting.

When I was first properly taught I had virtually no experience.

When I sought his counsel, a mutual acquaintance of ours suggested that would be a good thing, because I would not have ingrained habits to break.

When they explained "angle over distance", it made a lot of sense, though it was "counterintuitive" to me in the sense I'd never thought of it before.

My subsequent experience has only reinforced my conviction that the principle is sound. While I always TRY to achieve the optimum in both, when there is a "compromise" required, I always try to favor angle.

Until MY "boss" suggests he prefers the facade of "closeness" to the superior view of "angle", I'll continue to do so.

On the second point you raise....

When I have "self evaluated", there have been a number of occasions where I feel I may have "compromised" my position on an initial play, which I KNEW was going to happen, in order to put myself in a better position for a subsequent play that MIGHT happen.

One of the "areas for improvement" I'm focused on this year. I think a lot of it has to do with "reading" the play properly, and developing a better feel for the "probabilities" at the level of play I'm working that day.

JM