Umpires in the media

[mbyron]

First-Base Umpires Must Keep Eyes, and Ears, Open
(NY Times).

[greymule]

Good article, especially for general fans to appreciate the difficulty of the work umpires do. Even mentions the 7.01 wording.

[BSUmp16]

Except the correct citation for the point he is making is 6.05(j). Which is exactly the opposite of the point he's making.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Except the correct citation for the point he is making is 6.05(j). Which is exactly the opposite of the point he's making.

If it's the opposite of his point, why would that be the correct citation?

He cited the correct rule for the point he's making. The rules contradict each other. One of over 200 errors. :shrug:

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If it's the opposite of his point, why would that be the correct citation?

He cited the correct rule for the point he's making. The rules contradict each other. One of over 200 errors. :shrug:

Because, if you read the article, the writer is discussing plays at first base (see previous paragraph). He then cites 7.01 for the correct ruling on such plays. He then goes further and says that 7.01 implies the opposite of the "myth" that ties go to the runner.

So, the point he is trying to make is that (in connection with plays at first base) 7.01 applies (wrong) and that therefore the "ties go to the runner" is impliedly incorrect, citing 7.01.

Using the writer's cited factual situation (plays at first base), the correct citation is 6.05j, which is exactly the opposite of the point (dispels "ties go to the runner" myth) that he is trying to make.

Let me know if you need more help on this.

[TussAgee11]

I read it this weekend and despite the small error in a rules cite, I found the article to be very fair and accurately informative to an audience that knows nothing about umpiring.

In other words, it may get someone to appreciate the difficulty of the vocation/profession, and that there is alot more going through an umpire's head than anyone else in the park realizes.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Because, if you read the article, the writer is discussing plays at first base (see previous paragraph). He then cites 7.01 for the correct ruling on such plays. He then goes further and says that 7.01 implies the opposite of the "myth" that ties go to the runner.

So, the point he is trying to make is that (in connection with plays at first base) 7.01 applies (wrong) and that therefore the "ties go to the runner" is impliedly incorrect, citing 7.01.

Using the writer's cited factual situation (plays at first base), the correct citation is 6.05j, which is exactly the opposite of the point (dispels "ties go to the runner" myth) that he is trying to make.

Let me know if you need more help on this.

Quite frankly, who gives a $hit? The difference is uninteresting, IMO, and not worth being pedantic over.

[BSUmp16]

Apparently mbyron gave a $hit. I responded to his question. If you aren't interested, fine, read another thread

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Let me know if you need more help on this.

Here's BSump16, who is gloriously wrong in his reading of the column, trying to be patronizing to the entirely correct mbyron.

BTW, this may be the most informed article on umpiring I have read in the popular press.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Here's BSump16, who is gloriously wrong in his reading of the column, trying to be patronizing to the entirely correct mbyron.

BTW, this may be the most informed article on umpiring I have read in the popular press.

Thank you.

And I agree: good reporting, well written, informative.

[BSUmp16]

Look, the post may be uninteresting, and I'll concede I came across as patronizing; but I'm not wrong, let along gloriously wrong.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Look, the post may be uninteresting, and I'll concede I came across as patronizing; but I'm not wrong, let along gloriously wrong.

The rules contradict each other (or, more accurately, entail a contradiction). 6.05j applies to the batter, and 7.01 applies to all runners, including the batter-runner.

The former says that the batter is safe unless the ball beats him, and the latter says that he's out unless he beats the ball. This conflict is one of the better-known problems with OBR.

Your implicit contention that 7.01 does not apply to the batter-runner, with its implication that the BR is not a runner, is not supported by the text of the rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The former says that the batter is safe unless the ball beats him,

As much as I hate to join this,

The former says he's safe when he touches it before he is out.

The latter indicates one of the ways he can be out.

The "conflict" in the rules was between the BR at first and runners forced to another base. One rule had "the tie goes to the runner" and the other had "the tie goes to the defense." Now the rules have been changed so both agree that the "tie goes to the runner."

None of this changes how we (should) umpire.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

As much as I hate to join this,

The former says he's safe when he touches it before he is out.

The latter indicates one of the ways he can be out.

The "conflict" in the rules was between the BR at first and runners forced to another base. One rule had "the tie goes to the runner" and the other had "the tie goes to the defense." Now the rules have been changed so both agree that the "tie goes to the runner."

None of this changes how we (should) umpire.

I'm not doubting you but what rule has been changed to make the rules line up with "tie goes to the runner"

-Josh

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I'm not doubting you but what rule has been changed to make the rules line up with "tie goes to the runner"

-Josh

6.05j and 7.08e now read the same -- a runner is out if he is tagged *before* he touches the base. Since a tie is not "before", the runner is safe if there is a tie.

One of those said "a runner is out if he fails to touch the base before it is tagged." So, here, a tag meant an out.