ok, Ill ask the Jury..

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

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

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.

[SRW]

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.

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

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...

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

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.

[Dakota]

Maybe we should cut mcrowder some slack... he bounces back and forth between here and the baseball board... maybe he forgot which board he was on!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

That insinuation was not my intent.

What?!?! Wait a minute, they changed that rule this year. "Intent" is not in the definition and has been removed from most of the insinuation rules this year. You don't need intent to insinuate if, in your judgment, insinuation occured. Come on, folks, how many times do we have to go over these interference......er, insinuation.....DAMN!

NEV-R-MIIINNNDD!

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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

accepted... I may be a dumbass..but Im not a troll, and my umpiring skills are coming around :-)