As an active umpire at the Little League thru Big League levels and a clinic instructor I hear a lot of players, coaches and parents who think they know the rule. It wasn't until I became an umpire, attended a school in southern California and got a couple hundred games under my belt that I realized how much I never knew.

Probably one of the most common misconceptions regarding the rules is one I hear very frequently. "Tie goes to the runner!"

In the umpire school we were told there is never a tie nor a close pitch. Its either a ball or a strike or the runner is safe or out.

But, my favorite way to respond to someone who says that to me is to let them figure out the answer for himself or herself. I point out that the rules dictate that in order for a runner to be safe the runner must beat the throw, or in other words touch the base before fielder touches the base with possession of the ball or tags the runner.

I then ask my new-found "rules expert" if a tie qualifies as beating the throw. They know the answer is "NO". I smile and say, "Then I guess tie doesn't go to the runner afterall."

Tie goes to the defense...always!

Say what?
 

<b>Tie goes to the defense...always!</b>

and then you say

<b> In the umpire school we were told there is never a tie nor a close pitch
</b>

So which is it??

Or is there such a thing as a tie?

Just wonderin

Thanks
David

Tie goes to the umpire - OUT!
Close pitch goes to the umpire - STRIKE!
Questions wait until after the game!

One rule (7.08e) says that; the other (6.05j) says that to be out the ball must beat the runner.

By rule, the tie goes to the runner at first; the tie goes to the defense at other bases.

Re: Say what?
 

What I'm saying is the school says there is never a tie meaning we as umpires have to decide one way or the other. We would never say, "It's a tie. The runner is out!" The runner either did or did not beat the throw. But, in a purely off-the-field philosophical discussion with coaches, parents, etc., were I to concede that a tie could actually occur then I simply tell them the runner is out since he didn't beat the throw. That always ends the discussion since no one has ever pointed out to them the runner must beat the throw to be safe. By the time they recover from that enough to respond I'm out of there!

Primarily my umpiring is within the rules of Little League baseball rules. As many times as I've read the rule book I've never seen that rule. But, I love learning things I didn't know before. Could you please refer to book, chapter and verse that validates your statement? In either case I maintain there is no tie....ever. Either the runner got there first or the ball did. I won't discuss the possibility of a tie and its consequences during a game with anyone. Afterwards, oh yeah...I love rules disussions and those in the leagues I umpire in know I'm approachable for that reason.

S Bob said in his post, and you re-quoted, the rules are:

One rule (7.08e) says that; the other (6.05j) says that to be out the ball must beat the runner.

Read them closely and you will see what he means.

Obviously those rules being quoted aren't the Little League rules which is what I and the coaches in the league I umpire in must go by. What rule book are those rules from?

dude, you just said that a "tie" does not exist in the rules. which is it?

i'm only kidding, i undestand what you're saying and it is accurate and is a good way of putting it.

Whitscane12 says: "Obviously those rules being quoted aren't the Little League rules which is what I and the coaches in the league I umpire in must go by. What rule book are those rules from?"

LL uses OBR with some minor modifications. The rules referenced are OBR, which in this case are worded slightly differently than LL but have the same meaning.

<b>OBR</b> <i>7.08 Any runner is out when_ e) He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.</i>

<b>LL</b> <i>7.08 Any runner is out when - e) failing to reach the next base before a fielder tags said runner or the base after that runner has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.</i>

AND - in 6.05 LL combines OBR 6.05 b & c into one rule, resulting in being "off" by one letter but the wording is again virtually the same.

<b>OBR</b> <i>6.05 A batter is out when_ j) After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base;<i>

<b>LL</b> <i>A batter is out when - i) after hitting a fair ball, the batter-runner or first base is tagged before said batter-runner touches first base; or Junior/Senior/Big League, after a third strike as defined in Rule 6.09(b) the batter-runner or first base is tagged before said batter-runner touches first base;</i>

In Reality
 

As taught by both pro schools, there is no tie. Make a decision.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rich. That was very helpful. I appreciate your insight.

Tie goes to both!
 

Remember the mechanics we go through for a force out. Watch the feet at the bag and listen for the glove. So if the ball and the runner arrive at the same time we see the foot on the base before we hear the glove. Therefore Safe! Likewise when we see the foot when we hear the glove we call out as light travels faster than sound, therefore glove happened first.

"Tie goes to the .... ?"

Dad on Father's Day, birthdays.

Bob

Re: In Reality
 

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!

Re: In Reality
 

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!

*this post in no way, alludes to the fact that this guy WENT to the pro schools, i saw an ad online for them though :)

Clearly none of the posters in this thread are paid active members of Officiating.com, or you would know that I posted a two-part series on this very subject entitled <i>A Victory Sash</i>.

The fact is the rules cover four (4) separate circumstances in which a perceived tie goes one way or the other <b>by rule</b> - you'll have to read the article to find out which rules are involved. In two cases a perceived tie goes to the fielder and in two cases it goes to the runner.

I also advised that current pro instruction says that any perceived ties always go to the defense - if in doubt, call the out. For simplicity and for the sake of keeping the pro game entertaining, the pro's rule only one way despite what the rules themselves say. Now isn't that just like them? *grin*

Cheers

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

Cheers

Warren:

In none of the rules referenced do the words "perceived tie" exist. The perception is solely in the mind of the reader. Not one pro instructor or rules interpreter I have spoken with acknowledges that the rules are "intended" to award a so-called "tie" to anyone.

As you know the rule book is filled with inconsistency and error. Add to that, room for reader inference.

Since I do not subscribe to officiating.com I haven't read your piece on the matter, but from a practical, everyday, non-mental masturbation point of view, I'll go with the pro schools....there is no tie. There are only decisions to be made.

Since our readers are, by and large, human beings with separate individual perceptions of the same event, isn't it conceivable that there are observers who may look at a particular event and be unable to distinguish and make a decision based on the physical evidence alone?

The rules do not mention "ties" because the rules are written in black and white. As far as possible, those who made the rules have tried to cover all of the possibilities. But officials see events in living color, and that admits the possibility that two competing actions may occur so closely together that they cannot be separated or distinguished by an observer based on physical factors alone. That is why I said "<b>perceived</b> ties".

The fact remains that the rule language precludes ties by giving the umpire a factual basis for his decision, even when he cannot perceive a distinction between the two competing events. <ul><li>The runner must touch the base BEFORE being put out - if he touches it at the same time he is out [OBR 7.01].<p><li>The runner is only out when tagged while OFF the base - if he makes it back into contact at the same time as he is tagged then he is safe [OBR 7.08(c)]. </ul>These terms alone clearly dictate that ties are impossible <b>by rule</b> and <u>in reality</u>, but <b><i>not</i></b> in the viewer's perception. That was my point. Sure that perception is only in the eye of the beholder, but when that beholder is the umpire it's still important that he deals with that perception consistently and with the full support of the rules he administers.

Now are you seriously going to suggest that pointing out what the rules actually say is an exercise in "mental masturbation"? I thought proper interpretation and application of the rules was part of our job as officials? In order to make "decisions" you need to have sufficient information to separate the competing events. That's what an umpiring DECISION is, after all - the separation of competing events by selecting the pre-eminent event based on the rules of the game.

Cheers,

JMO here.

I have to agree with those who say there is no tie. It is your judgement as an umpire to make a decision. I never heard an umpire say "Tie" on a close play at first or any other base. Obviously there are ties, and IMO there are circumstances during the play that help me make the call.

Example: 1) Diving play in the hole by the SS, throws form knees, runner and ball arrive simultaneously, "OUT"!

2) Ball hit to F4 who bobbles ball, runner and ball arrive simultaneously, "SAFE"!

3) Base hit by B1 and tries to stretch into a double, tag at second is applied same time runner touches base, "OUT"!

I'll be waiting for your thoughts on this philosophy.

AGREED!

I believe as we are told to "sell the call!"

The fields and runners should do the same!...(Positioning, speed, keeping the ball in the glove, etc...)

"Clearly none of the posters in this thread are paid active members of Officiating.com, or you would know that I posted a two-part series on this very subject entitled A Victory Sash."

Clearly, like so many other media guru's, you are caught up into to your own world of greatness and find it difficult to believe that some people don't care about what you have written or believe it, just because you have put it in print.

Clearly what we have here is a Correspondent that goes to print, WITHOUT checking there facts.

NOW, how are we to believe the validity of your other works?

burn!

I don't consider myself a "media guru"; just another official with something to offer from experience. My experience of researching the rules showed that there are actually 4 occasions when a perceived tie is clearly decided by the rule wording, and I shared that finding in the subject article. Some people would have no doubt have found that helpful. Go figure.

My comment that has obviously lit your wick was a reflection that NONE of the posters in this thread were apparently aware that the article even existed, because they were referring to only 2 instances where the rules differed on who gets the benefit of any perceived tie. The fact was noted with some curiousity, but not contempt. A pity you cannot react in the same fashion.

If you don't care about what I have written, no problem. Your track record is even worse with me! I don't care whether you "<i>believe the validity of (my) other works</i>" or not. I still get paid anyway. At least I know the difference between "there" and "their" in the English language! Obviously you need to read a whole lot more to improve your skills in that area!

Cheers

"I don't care whether you "believe the validity of (my) other works" or not. I still get paid anyway"

Spoken like a true professional.

I have already agreed that there is <u>no tie</u> <b>by rule</b>, and that what is required is a decision. My point was that even where an official <b>perceives</b> that a tie may have occurred the decision CAN and SHOULD be based on <u>what the rule says</u>, and not on some arbitrary rule of thumb ("<i>If in doubt, call 'em out!</i>") 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 didn't say that I didn't care whether ANYONE believed what I had to say or not, only that I didn't care whether YOU believed it or not. Obviously your comprehension skills are no better than your spelling or grammar!

If I didn't believe that any new or aspiring official with an open mind would benefit from me sharing my experience and research, then I honestly wouldn't bother to contribute despite the money. Take it or leave it!

Cheers

Get the call right everytime!
 

Wow! Little did I realize my measly little post about "ties" would generate so much great discussion. Thanks, gentlemen for sharing your wisdom (and in some cases, perhaps, lack of the same!). I'm proud to be a part of such a vast network of professionals (paid or not) who are helping to perpetuate the game I love. I'll umpire with any of you any time...even if your grammar and spelling skills aren't as good as your umpiring skills!

When I teach umpiring clinics I make it a point to tell the trainees that it is their responsibility to get the call right every time. "Impossible!" you say? Not at all. You may not always be correct but you can always be right.

The correct call is literally what happened. If you could see replays from every angle and determine for certain what happened on any given play that would be the correct call.

The right call is whatever you, as the umpire, BELIEVES to be the correct call. Make that call every time and you will always make the right call.

Thanks again.

Anyone ever thought of just yelling "TIE!" and letting the players figure it out? ;) I thought I would try that maybe one time, but anyway...

If the runner beats the throw, it belongs to the runner.
If the throw beats the runner, it belongs to the defense.
If they both get there at the same time, it belongs to me.

Make a decision and sell the call. It's a judgment. That's why we get paid the big bucks. :D

The bottom line is,,,,
 

The tie goes to the UMPIRE!

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 ("<i>If in doubt, call 'em out!</i>") 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!

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 <b>by rule</b>. That's as black and white as it gets under the OBR.
Now, now. I only criticised Jim's spelling and grammar because he lit the flame under me first - literally! *grin*

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 <i>Umpire Ethics</i>.

There is <b>umpire's judgement</b> and then there is <b>personal judgement</b>. If I decide the runner was out because he failed to beat the play, that's <u>umpire's judgement</u> 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 <u>personal judgement</u> 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 <i>need</i> 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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.
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.

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

Cheers

Hmmm... Consider the following play:<ul>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?</ul>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

Warren sez: <b>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.
</b>

EXACTLY! <b>By your understanding</b>. 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.

So we really are in agreement then?
 

WHOA! I AGREE with everything you state here.

I don't recall <i>ever</i> 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 <i><u>eliminate the possibility of ties</i></u>.

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

Apparently not
 

Sez Warren: <b>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! </b>

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.

You're yankin' my chain, right?
 

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! "<i>There is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie...</i>" indeed! *BIG grin*

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

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

Cheers

<b>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! </b>

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..."

<b>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!</b>

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]

"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

"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

Re: Re: In Reality
 

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

A "...near physical impossibility"?<p><ul><li>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.<p><li>Fact: Human visual accuity is not good enough to discern even the smallest gap from over 15 feet away.<p><li>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.<p></ul>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

<b>A "...near physical impossibility"?</b>

Yes.

<b>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.</b>

And?


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

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

<b>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.</b>

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


<b>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* </b>

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.

<b>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. </b>

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.

<b>Add that to your personal list of logical fallacies, GB.</b>

(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.

<b>Don't worry, you'll get there! *BIG grin*</b>

Been there.

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

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...