A true tie (assuming infinite measurement accuracy, which is perhaps what WMB was talking about) would be exceedingly rare.

But, it really doesn't matter, since when the fans or coaches say "the tie goes to the runner" what they really mean is all close plays should be given to "our" runner. They don't really mean a literal tie - they just mean too close for THEM to see a clear out, and since they are on the offensive side, that doesn't have to be very close at all. :cool:

It appears to be a tie. If it's that close, give it to the runner. Tell the defense to make the play and not make it so close. Get 'em out.

Depends.

Maybe you should call the runner out and tell the offense to run faster and not make the play so close. Or hit the ball further.......

Are you suggesting following the "who made it close" theory? I read this theory argued with some conviction by a baseball umpire. If memory serves, it goes something like this:

1) If one side muffed things and thereby made what would not have been close into a close play, call for the other side.

2) If one side made a brilliant play and thereby made close what should not have been close, call for that side.

The theory had to do with it being the call people would expect, etc.

A while back, I worked with some blues, from south of Minnesota, who had this theory:

Call 'em all out. If I got it wrong, let the coach come out and ask me for help. Then my partner can correct me. If the coach doesn't come out, we get an out.

I understood the logic, but I disagreed with the practice.

Actually I was just "messing" with rodan55 :) But the "who made it close" argument would work for me.

I usually use the "I Love Outs" theory...... If it's really close I have an out.
or the "When in doubt, call them out" theory :D

The fallacy in claiming that there cannot be a tie is the assumption that the moment the ball hits the glove or the foot hits the base can be defined as an infinitesmal point in time, like a theoretical point on a line. If we could in fact define the concept of hits to this degree, then we could legitimately say that the ball never hits the glove at exactly the same time as the foot hits the base. We could by extension say that no two raindrops ever hit the ground at exactly the same moment.

But we cannot define the hits of these occurrences down at the subatomic level. If we had a camera that magnified to a power of a quadrillion, we would not be able to say, "This is the precise moment when the ball hit the glove, and it beat the foot hitting the base by one quadrillionth of a second. Past a certain point far larger than a quadrillionth of a second, all measurement breaks down—because we can't define hits to that degree of precision.

Well, I THOUGHT it was a simple question......some of you need to be working more games..........:cool:

ok, Ill ask the Jury.. So has the jury spoken, or are we (ahem) "TIED" up?

Femtosecond (fs) = One quadrillionth of a second (10-15 s).

There are Femtolasers, used in Femtochemistry, for measuring chemical reactions. Maybe we could borrow the one our good friend Ahmed Zewail, California Institute of Technology, has and settle this tie issue once and for all. :D

I stayed out of this on purpose, as I was seemingly the antagonist on this one, and I didn't mean to be.

I've heard all the previous methods of calling apparent ties (extremely close plays ... whatever.) I'll add this one I have heard: If it SEEMS to be a tie, based on the visual sight of the foot hitting the bag and the sound of the ball hitting the glove, the ball must have hit the glove first - as the speed of sound is much slower than the speed of light.

I grant that to be a bit of a stretch, but no more so than the "reward the good play" theory (which seems to hinge solely on whether the fielder made an outstanding, average, or horrid play - and completely ignores whether the runner made an outstanding, average, or slothlike pace), nor the "ties go to the runner" by rule theory - which by the actual words of half of the rulebooks (including ASA) is technically correct, but quite probably not what they actually meant. I should note that several other rulebooks (across both stick and ball games) state specifically that the BR wins a tie but just an R does not (See OBR 7.08 as one example ... Pony softball is, if memory serves, another).

Truly, if measured to infinite degree, there cannot really be a tie in two individual moving events unless they are related (started simulateously, perfectly equal distance, speed, and acceleration, and no other forces acting on the system - probably only achievable in a lab). But I do understand that it's possible for two separate moving events to occur so close together that human eye measurement cannot distinguish which occurred first.

Ya know...
Neither my eyes, nor my brain is a testing lab.

I can not differentiate within the one second I have to make a judgement call that what I saw and heard were so close together that they need to have a mathematical explination to distinguish which came first, or if they indeed met at the same time.

I have about one second to see it, process it, and call it.
I do not give a $h!t if "mathematically" a tie can or can't happen.
I know that I can't tell the difference when it's THAT close.

And I know that you can't either. If you tell me you can, you're full of $h!t.

When I see a tie, I call the runner safe. That's what the book tells me to do. That's how it's written, and that's how I'll call it.

Isn't that like most of the US? :D

yup..you WERE the antagonist....twice.... and I wouldnt mind an apology for insinuating that I was a dumbass troll with no clue how to umpire...

OK - I apologize. That insinuation was not my intent.