Tie goes to the .... ?

[whitecane12]

The tie goes to the UMPIRE!

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

I have already agreed that there is no tie by rule, and that what is required is a decision. My point was that even where an official perceives that a tie may have occurred the decision CAN and SHOULD be based on what the rule says, and not on some arbitrary rule of thumb ("If in doubt, call 'em out!") or a personal judgement about whether the defense deserved to make the out or not on the basis of their good or bad play. That's NOT the umpire's job, at least according to the rules.

The rules clearly dictate what the outcome should be in any perceived tie situation. I believe umpires need to make a decision based on the rules, not on what they may personally think was good or bad play. That's my take on the question. If you choose to do otherwise then so be it. I won't criticise you for your choice but I personally prefer to administer the game according to the rules, wherever that is clearly and practically possible.

Cheers

I understand what you are saying and agree that decisions need to be made based on the rules. But then again, if the rules were so cut and dry, there wouldn't be a need for this forum, would there be?

Excuse me if I misuse any puncuations or mispell any words. Please let me know if I do.

I mean no disrespect when I ask, Have you ever played baseball? The reason I ask is there is more to playing ball than the rules. There is also instinct, timing, judgement. You say on one hand, to go by the rules, then say,

"not on some arbitrary rule of thumb ("If in doubt, call 'em out!") or a personal judgement about whether the defense deserved to make the out or not on the basis of their good or bad play. That's NOT the umpire's job, at least according to the rules".

Forgive me, but I am confused! Isn't personal judgement part of an Umpire's Job? Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think judgement is a "Rule". My point is that there has to be, and is some basis for the call to be made.

Have you ever called a strike a ball on a pitcher because he showed you up the last pitch?

Ever call a ball a strike on a batter who showed his displeasure with your last called strike?

I don't think those are in the rulebook, are they?

How can I can get a copy of your "piece" on this subject Warren?

And Yes, I am trying to keep this post alive. It seems to be the only one going pretty good, and the comments are starting to get a little more personal, I Love It!

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by thumpferee
I understand what you are saying and agree that decisions need to be made based on the rules. But then again, if the rules were so cut and dry, there wouldn't be a need for this forum, would there be?

I'm NOT suggesting that ALL the rules are cut and dried. I know much better than to suggest that. OTOH I AM suggesting that those 4 rules that cover safe or out in advancing or retreating ARE pretty cut and dried. The rules themselves dictate how the official should decide any perceived tie, even if they never use the term "perceived tie".

For example, a runner forced to advance will be out if he doesn't reach the next base BEFORE he or the base is tagged. [OBR 7.08(e)] So, in the event the umpire believes there was a tie and the runner reached the base AT THE SAME TIME as he or the base was tagged, the runner is OUT by rule. That's as black and white as it gets under the OBR.

Excuse me if I misuse any puncuations or mispell any words. Please let me know if I do.

Now, now. I only criticised Jim's spelling and grammar because he lit the flame under me first - literally! *grin*

I mean no disrespect when I ask, Have you ever played baseball? The reason I ask is there is more to playing ball than the rules. There is also instinct, timing, judgement. You say on one hand, to go by the rules, then say, "not on some arbitrary rule of thumb ("If in doubt, call 'em out!") or a personal judgement about whether the defense deserved to make the out or not on the basis of their good or bad play. That's NOT the umpire's job, at least according to the rules".

Forgive me, but I am confused! Isn't personal judgement part of an Umpire's Job? Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think judgement is a "Rule". My point is that there has to be, and is some basis for the call to be made.

I have a lifetime .400 batting average, but I was never much of a player. I couldn't pitch and I sure as heck couldn't catch worth a damn. That doesn't mean I don't understand and follow the subtle nuances of the game. I wrote a 7-part series for Officiating.com explaining exactly what you said - that there is more to umpiring than simply enforcing the rules. It was called Umpire Ethics.

There is umpire's judgement and then there is personal judgement. If I decide the runner was out because he failed to beat the play, that's umpire's judgement that is fully supported by the rules. OTOH, if I decide the runner was out because I think that the shortstop made a great play and deserved to get an out, that's my personal judgement and there is NO rule book support for that. I'm not out there to decide whether or not plays deserve to be rewarded with outs. I AM out there to decide whether or not the runner beat the ball to the base - or whatever else the rules require!

Personal judgement is only ever of any use when the rules are unclear and there's no other way to make a decision. My point was that you don't need to resort to personal judgement in the case of perceived ties - because there is ample clarity in the rules to allow for decisions based on umpire judgement alone. Unfortunately many officials refuse to believe that, because they so enjoy having the power of a team's success or failure under their control. I question their impartiality as arbiters.

Have you ever called a strike a ball on a pitcher because he showed you up the last pitch?

Ever call a ball a strike on a batter who showed his displeasure with your last called strike?

I don't think those are in the rulebook, are they?

No, I never have made such a call and no those aren't in the rule book. I have once, and once only, made what Carl Childress calls an F*U call - which is pretty close to what you have described. I did it to keep a chirping catcher in the game because I'd just appointed him the replacement manager after ejecting his manager of record. Only 3 people knew that I'd made that call - the catcher/manager, the batter and me. The batter got a ball called on a pitch that could have gone either way, but was in fact a strike. The catcher got to stay in the game and quickly understood the message that I was running the game and he needed to calm the heck down. The pitcher threw the next pitch in the exact same spot (at my request to the catcher) and got the strike he deserved. It's not a call I ever expect to make again, but I will if the need arises in similar circumstances.

I don't abuse my power as an official in order to "square the ledger" with players or managers who have expressed their displeasure with my calls. Instead I use the rules for warning and ejecting as they were intended, and I rarely have to eject as the result. I have at one time umpired for 40 weeks of the calendar year for 5 consecutive years, and gone through an entire summer and winter season without a single ejection. OTOH I've also managed to dump as many as 5 participants at once for objecting to a single call. I am NOT regarded as a "red a$$" as you guys say.

How can I can get a copy of your "piece" on this subject Warren?

And Yes, I am trying to keep this post alive. It seems to be the only one going pretty good, and the comments are starting to get a little more personal, I Love It!

Sign up for your free 30 day trial at Officiating.com and you'll get instant access to over 20 of my "pieces", and a wealth of even better ones from more accomplished writers like Rich Fronheiser, Tim Stevens, Garth Benham and Carl Childress. Oh, and I think there may even be one or two from the token Canuck, Blaine Gallant, and a word or two from His High Holiness, Peter Osborne. *BIG grin*

I don't blame you for trying to keep the thread going. Trust me, without really trying I often manage to stir up a tornado in a thimble. I think it has something to do with my style of expression and use of the language that rubs so many people the wrong way. Sorry, but I can't help being an Australian and talkin' different to y'all! *grin*

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 1st, 2003 at 09:13 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Not quite true, Bob. Compare OBR 7.10(a), for example, where by rule any perceived tie should go to the runner - at any base.

Cheers

1) By "runner at first" I meant "batter-runner advancing to first" -- I thought that was clear from the previous posts in the thread (or maybe I'm not remembering the thread correctly -- I've been away for a few days).

2) I read 7.10(a) as "a tie goes to the defense" -- a runner is out if he doesn't touch before the defense; a runner is out if he touches at the same time or after the defense.

3) Nice to see you back.

[GarthB]

Why is it the most indepth explanation of the rules, including 7.10(a), offered by professionals and historians do not discuss a "tie?" (I offer JEA as example.)

I believe it's simple.

The rulesmakers knew that decisions would be made as to what happend first. The rules were written by them and for them. They had no idea some amateur umpires and coaches would be arguing for a tie. Their explanation of what constituted a tag for an out used simple language. "If the runner doesn't do this before that, he's out." They knew what they meant, as does Evans.

Had they known the rhetorical gymnastics to be exercised years later, maybe they would have worded it differently.

When the rulesmakers wanted detail and wanted to eliminate judgment, they did so. It cannot be construed as an accident that they did not speak of a tie.

We can envision a tie in their choice of phrasing all we want. But it is simply self serving our part.

One thing happens first. Always.

"And, what if the umpire perceives a tie?"

Then he is ill informed.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
1) By "runner at first" I meant "batter-runner advancing to first" -- I thought that was clear from the previous posts in the thread (or maybe I'm not remembering the thread correctly -- I've been away for a few days).

I knew what you meant - OBR 6.05(j). I was contrasting OBR 7.10(a) with your suggestion that ties elsewhere always go to the defense. See below for my explanation of what went wrong with that effort.

2) I read 7.10(a) as "a tie goes to the defense" -- a runner is out if he doesn't touch before the defense; a runner is out if he touches at the same time or after the defense.

You are correct. It was late, I was tired, blah, blah, blah... I probably should have used OBR 7.08(c) for the desired contrast. I was thinking tag up on a pick off, not tag up on a caught fly ball, but I definitely quoted you the wrong example. Sorry.

3) Nice to see you back.

Thank you. It's nice to be back. I wonder how long it will last? *grin*

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by GarthB
Why is it the most indepth explanation of the rules, including 7.10(a), offered by professionals and historians do not discuss a "tie?" (I offer JEA as example.)

I believe it's simple.

...[snip]...

One thing happens first. Always.

"And, what if the umpire perceives a tie?"

Then he is ill informed.

Hmmm... Consider the following play:

0 outs, no runners, batter chops one toward the gap between F5 and F6. F6 makes a desperate dive, gloves the ball and comes up throwing to 1st base. Despite TV camera's, thousands of eyes and a top rate umpire with 20/20 vision, as far as everyone can SEE the ball and the runner arrived simulteously. What "one thing" happened first, and how do you know?

The answer is neither relevant "thing" happened first as far as anyone can prove, but under the subject rule that doesn't matter! The runner had to get there BEFORE the base was tagged. Runner is OUT!

Now by my understanding that was one of your non-existant perceived ties, and yet the rule book had a clinical way for the umpire to deal with that perfectly valid perception.

I don't think the umpire who perceives a tie is ill-informed. That information is every bit as useful and valuable to him in this case as if he had seen the ball clearly arrive first. Perceiving a tie is what tells him to call and signal OUT on the runner under 6.05(j). The runner didn't BEAT the ball.

Now THAT'S simple. *grin*

Cheers

[GarthB]

Warren sez: Now by my understanding that was one of your non-existant perceived ties, and yet the rule book had a clinical way for the umpire to deal with that perfectly valid perception.


EXACTLY! By your understanding. Not by intent of the rule, tradition or anything else related to baseball.

I'll side with the historians and rule experts on this one, Mate: There is no intention of the rules to allow for ties.

I've got your back on others, but not this one.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by GarthB
Warren sez: Now by my understanding that was one of your non-existant perceived ties, and yet the rule book had a clinical way for the umpire to deal with that perfectly valid perception.


EXACTLY! By your understanding. Not by intent of the rule, tradition or anything else related to baseball.

I'll side with the historians and rule experts on this one, Mate: There is no intention of the rules to allow for ties.

I've got your back on others, but not this one.

WHOA! I AGREE with everything you state here.

I don't recall ever claiming that the "intention of the rules" was "to allow for ties". On the contrary, I believe the intention of the rules was clearly to eliminate the possibility of ties.

That was my point: If you as umpire perceive a tie between competing events then the rule will actually tell you how to resolve it! You don't need no cotton-pickin', bango-strummin', straw stick-suckin' "rule of thumb" to decide the question. JUST READ THE DANG RULE. *HUGE grin*

Cheers

[GarthB]

Sez Warren: That was my point: If you as umpire perceive a tie between competing events then the rule will actually tell you how to resolve it!

I know that's your point. But that's not mine. Repeat after me...there is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie.

Your "understanding" is not only contrary to that of the historians and rule experes, it furthers the moronic mantra we hear over and over: Hey, Blue, the tie goes to the (fill in the blank.)

The tied goes to no one. THERE IS NO FREAKING TIE.

If there was, JEA sure as hell would have discussed it in 7.10(a). If there was, he sure as hell would discuss it in his school and clinics. If there was, it would have been worded as such by the rulesmakers from Cartwright forward.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by GarthB
Sez Warren: That was my point: If you as umpire perceive a tie between competing events then the rule will actually tell you how to resolve it!

I know that's your point. But that's not mine. Repeat after me...there is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie.

Your "understanding" is not only contrary to that of the historians and rule experes, it furthers the moronic mantra we hear over and over: Hey, Blue, the tie goes to the (fill in the blank.)

The tied goes to no one. THERE IS NO FREAKING TIE.

If there was, JEA sure as hell would have discussed it in 7.10(a). If there was, he sure as hell would discuss it in his school and clinics. If there was, it would have been worded as such by the rulesmakers from Cartwright forward.

Now you're trying to sucker me with semantics. You can't stick your beak in the sand and deny that two competing events may ever happen simultaneously because the Official Baseball Rules, PBUC and Jim Evans don't mention it! We all KNOW that it happens. You can't silence the offending moronic mantra by chanting one of your own in response! "There is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie..." indeed! *BIG grin*

The correct response to your ill-educated inquisitor is not "There is no tie!" He KNOWS what he saw and will only believe you incompetent if you didn't see it too! No, the correct response is instead "He didn't beat the play" or "He wasn't off base when tagged". Rule book terminology and an understanding of how the rules operate to eliminate ties is your best shot at salvation.

Repeat after me "Hallelujah, Brother. I've seen the Truth and the Truth has set me free!" *HUGE grin*

Cheers

[GarthB]

You can't stick your beak in the sand and deny that two competing events may ever happen simultaneously because the Official Baseball Rules, PBUC and Jim Evans don't mention it!

No, not because anyone does not mention it. Because it's a very near physical impossibility. OBR, PBUC, Evans and others don't mention it because it was never intended to covered by rule.The rulesmakers were smart enough to understand that. They just weren't clever enough to predict others, years down the road, would parse their wording to invent a "tie goes to..."

The correct response to your ill-educated inquisitor is not "There is no tie!" He KNOWS what he saw and will only believe you incompetent if you didn't see it too!

Glad to see you agree that those who think there is a tie are ill-educated. But I don't worry about what they think or say or want me to say. If I did, I'd still be arguing that the hands aren't part of the bat.

Nope. As Carl says, everyone is entitle to their opinion but not all opinions are equal. The opinion of those who spend their lives understanding the intent of the rule book weighs heavy.



[Edited by GarthB on Jul 2nd, 2003 at 08:37 AM]

[Jerry]

"The opinion of those who spend their lives understanding the intent of the rule book weighs heavy."

My Lord we miss Carl!

The next time it happens, yell "Tie!" and sees what happens next.

Jerry

[Jerry]

"The opinion of those who spend their lives understanding the intent of the rule book weighs heavy."

My Lord, I miss Carl!

The next time it happens, call "Tie!" and wait to see what happens next.

Jerry

[douglas childress]

Originally posted by Lonewolf986

AGREED!

Baseball is black and white, Umpires are the judge, pass a verdict, get on with the game!

Theres NO SUCH THING AS A TIE!

Either the runner was safe or out. No such thing as a tie in baseball