Tie goes to the .... ?

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by 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]

A "...near physical impossibility"?

• Fact: The human eye cannot follow the entire track of a thrown baseball because it cannot receive and interpret the visual input as fast as the ball travels. So it leaves out "frames" of information in order to keep up.

• Fact: Human visual accuity is not good enough to discern even the smallest gap from over 15 feet away.

• Fact: The human male brain is biologically compartmentalised and so physically unable to focus on more than one thing at any time - a legacy of our historical social role and evolution as hunters.

Given those facts, are you still going to claim that ties don't exist because Evans and the rules don't mention them? Phooey! *grin*

Ties between competing events viewed with human faculties are a fact of life, even in baseball! That's why the rules are so carefully worded, to eliminate the necessity to separate those events when they occur.

Rule book terminology, my friend. Nothing beats it for handling objections, especially moronic ones, and that's Evan's own oft-stated advice on the subject too!

You should know that failure to mention a subject in a book does NOT constitute the passing of an authoritative opinion on the unmentioned subject. Add that to your personal list of logical fallacies, GB. Know why encyclopaedia's have annual updates? Because knowledge grows with time and experience. When was JEA's last annual update? When was the rule book last updated? Don't worry, you'll get there! *BIG grin*

Cheers

[GarthB]

A "...near physical impossibility"?

Yes.

Fact: The human eye cannot follow the entire track of a thrown baseball because it cannot receive and interpret the visual input as fast as the ball travels. So it leaves out "frames" of information in order to keep up.

And?


Fact: Human visual accuity is not good enough to discern even the smallest gap from over 15 feet away.

How small is the smallest gap? Are we now counting angels on the head of a pin?

Fact: The human male brain is biologically compartmentalised and so physically unable to focus on more than one thing at any time - a legacy of our historical social role and evolution as hunters.

No, that's opinion and it is currently the topic of hot debates in scientific and socialogical circles.


Given those facts, are you still going to claim that ties don't exist because Evans and the rules don't mention them? Phooey! *grin*

No. I will still claim that ties don't exist becuase they don't. I will claim that the rules were not intended to provide for ties because they were not. I will claim the historians and experts agree with this because they do.

Ties in baseball are the invention of minds who choose to percieve them. That does not make them ezist anywhere but in their world. In the real world of baseball at the minor and major league levels, and I believe, Div-1, there are no ties. There are events that demand decisions.

You should know that failure to mention a subject in a book does NOT constitute the passing of an authoritative opinion on the unmentioned subject.

That was not my claim, and I think you know that. Rewording someone's position and attempting to pass it off as representing their view does not constitute proper discourse.

Add that to your personal list of logical fallacies, GB.

(Sigh) This has obviously reached the point of diminishing returns and is bordering on tipping two old friends into something at least I prefer to avoid.

I will depart this thread realizing that I live in the real world and that regardless of those who choose perception over fact, I will follow the counsel of those who know the game, traditions and rules much better than you or I.

Don't worry, you'll get there! *BIG grin*

Been there.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by GarthB
You should know that failure to mention a subject in a book does NOT constitute the passing of an authoritative opinion on the unmentioned subject.

That was not my claim, and I think you know that. Rewording someone's position and attempting to pass it off as representing their view does not constitute proper discourse.

You said Evans doesn't mention "ties". Agreed? You then said that "authoritive opinion" was that "there are no ties". Agreed? Now either Evans didn't mention "ties" at all, OR he said "ties don't exist" which is another thing entirely. Which is it? Or did you have some other "authoritive opinion" in mind? If so, I'd like to know who.

I haven't reworded anything, GB. I have simply repeated your own claims from this debate.

Perhaps this has gone on far too long. We are friends and if you feel that is threatened by the discussion then I too would prefer to drop it. I just don't want to go having you think I was "messin' witcha".

Cheers

[Lonewolf986]

A rather old issue...

As umpires, we are expected to be "perfect" in every situation. Every decision, involved in it, an action-reaction. So though the outside world may claim "tie." Within the construct of baseball, the system that the rules have created, there is no such thing as a tie.

Yes, Umpires are not perfect...but within this game, for those nine innings and the duration of that game, every decision we make is binding.

But it seems as though the arguing is mainly based on a person wanting us to "admit" there is a "possibility" of a tie. They might even think that we are being pigheaded and stubborn, for not even acknowledging the possibility.

Maybe, maynot. All things said, if we acknowledge, then it may allow certain doubt in the one skill we cannot weaken...our ability to deliberate. So yes, I believe there is a possibility of two events happening at the same time, however...when I wear that uniform, a tie is not in my thought process, just action-reaction...