"Tie goes to the runner"

[TwoBits]

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?

[Ump153]

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

[JohnDorian37]

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.

[UmpJM]

John,

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

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.

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?

...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.

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.

Rules Myths Part 1

You're welcome.

JM

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

Rules Myths Part 1

You're welcome.

JM

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.

[UmpJM]

TwoBits,

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

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[jicecone]

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.

[rcaverly]

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.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

JJ

[Mrumpiresir]

Get an out. Just be consistent with it.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

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?

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".

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE=TwoBits;747751]

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

.

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