It's a myth which brings coaches out of the dugout on plays like this:

PLAY: R1, 1 out. Line drive to F6. R1 is trying to return to first to avoid being doubled up, F6's throw ends up over the fence. Place the runner.

An umpire using 1+1 either doesn't understand the rules or is perpetuating the notion of 1+1 with coaches, neither of which is good.

Yes. But it still does tell people what the rule does pretty well.

You are either incredibly hard-headed, or really dumb.

THE RULE [which the "1+1" MYTH mythologizes] awards 2 bases EVERY time.
"1+1" is only true SOME of the time. There are NO situations where "1+1" is a better or clearer explanation than "2 from the [place where the award begins".

Since there are occasions [not infrequent at all] where "1+1" does not equal "2", the only thing "1+1" "does pretty well" is confuse people who are too dumb or too lazy to learn the actual Rule.

LEARN THE ACTUAL RULE - EXPLAIN THE AWARD CORRECTLY.

True, it DOES tell people what the rule does "pretty well." But sometimes it's wrong.

Umpires need to know the rule, not the rule of thumb, and their explanations should cite the rule, not the rule of thumb.

The Rule Of Thumb

http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/judge_thumb.jpg

♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ The way she does just what she's told, down to me, the change has come, she's under my thumb♩ ♪ ♫ ♬

I guess that would be a fair reason to put it on here. I do know the rule, but i find explaining it that way creates less confusion. I tend to word it this way "2 bases from the time of the throw (the actual rule), so the one he was going to (1) and the next one (+1)" saying the rule and giving a different way to look at it has worked for me so far.

We always need to make sure we know the rule how it is, before we can start to try and explain it differently.

I dont think i need to be flamed on here sir.

I have always found that explaining the rule as written works better than making up stuff and perpetuating the 1 + 1 fallacy. "Two bases from the time of the throw" is concise and not in the least confusing. If I get the "I don't understand" look from them, I say it "Two bases from the runner's position at the time the fielder released the throw." That's the most explanation I'm giving.

And that's where I would object. Our goal is not to avoid confusion (or postpone it). Our job is to get it right.

You encounter confusion partly because previous umpires have not used correct explanations.

I think 1+1, ADDS to the confusion.

In the minds of the uninformed coach, the guy is standing on 1st base when the throw is made would only get second with this incorrect way of stating the rule. "He was not going anywhere so, he get only the one, right?

I think I can more simply explain some rules than the way they are written in some instances but, I NEVER intentionally change the rule!

I'd say that the jury is still out on that assertion, as it is not clear which of my alternate explanations [for your dogged insistence that giving a wrong basis for a ruling/ award is a good idea] is the correct explanation. I remain open to the "hard-headed" view, but your continued argument that there is any merit whatsoever in explaining a ruling "differently" [which everyone else would simply refer to as "incorrectly"] lends weight to the other choice.

Do you actually umpire? While your explanation might suffice "most of the time", it's the rest of the time that causes the problems. For me, when one of those "rest-of-the-time" situations happens (and they're not especially rare), I rue every umpire that perpetuates the 1+1 myth. I shouldn't have to explain 2 from the throw (or pitch), but it happens too often, and it's frustrating. Perhaps that's why you're getting some heat on this.

Really thought this example would help the uninformed. Apparently I was wrong.