Tennessee vs. Michigan

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

... BEFORE the runner touched the base.

And 8-2-C says the same for a batter runner, they are out if they are put out PRIOR to reaching first base.

My personal philosphy: I listen for the pop of the ball and watch the runner's foot... if I hear the ball at the exact same time I see the foot, then the ball must have gotten there 3/10,000,000ths of a second sooner since sound travels slower then light.

That's assuming I'm about 10 feet away when I make the call. If I'm in "C", I'll adjust as needed.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Switch to math concept for a moment. Either x > y, or x = y, or x < y. Technically, there are 3 possibilities; runner came first, out came first, or there was an exact tie. By the actual wording of the rules, the runner is not required to beat the out, the out is required to beat the runner. Therefore, tie must go to the runner.

By the next extension of science, what is the actual possibility of an exact tie in time and space, when time can be broken into an infinitesimally small component? My argument isn't that ties don't go to the runner; I submit that I have never seen one; in fact, at some point, the human eye is incapable of judging anything that infinitesimally small, even with slow motion replay, at times.

Bottom line is my judgment, which I trust to be sharper in the vasy majority of cases than the coaches or fans (who see with their hearts, not just their eyes). If the ball beat the runner, I have an out; if the ball didn't beat the runner, I have a safe. I refuse to discuss ties (I know I'm not wearing one!!). All I will state in response is if the ball did or didn't beat the runner.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Switch to math concept for a moment. Either x > y, or x = y, or x < y. Technically, there are 3 possibilities; runner came first, out came first, or there was an exact tie. By the actual wording of the rules, the runner is not required to beat the out, the out is required to beat the runner. Therefore, tie must go to the runner.

By the next extension of science, what is the actual possibility of an exact tie in time and space, when time can be broken into an infinitesimally small component? My argument isn't that ties don't go to the runner; I submit that I have never seen one; in fact, at some point, the human eye is incapable of judging anything that infinitesimally small, even with slow motion replay, at times.

Bottom line is my judgment, which I trust to be sharper in the vasy majority of cases than the coaches or fans (who see with their hearts, not just their eyes). If the ball beat the runner, I have an out; if the ball didn't beat the runner, I have a safe. I refuse to discuss ties (I know I'm not wearing one!!). All I will state in response is if the ball did or didn't beat the runner.

And for that, I'll give you a HUGE round of applause! I don't think it could have been said any better.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Switch to math concept for a moment. Either x > y, or x = y, or x < y. Technically, there are 3 possibilities; runner came first, out came first, or there was an exact tie. By the actual wording of the rules, the runner is not required to beat the out, the out is required to beat the runner. Therefore, tie must go to the runner.

By the next extension of science, what is the actual possibility of an exact tie in time and space, when time can be broken into an infinitesimally small component?

Possibility? Same as the other two, one in three.

Probability? Not enough bandwidth to even think about it.

[CecilOne]

The point is that it does not matter if the ball/fielder and runner arrived at the exact same infinitesimal measure of time; but just that no one could tell which came first. A "tie" is when they appear to be simultaneous to the human eye/ear and that is when the ball/fielder did not beat the runner and the call is safe.