ok, Ill ask the Jury..
 

Ties......


Do they exist....


and if the ball doesnt beat the runner to the bag...safe..or out?

Its my contention that if the ball doesnt beat the runner..he/she is safe..its my contention that there ARE ties..... and its my contention...as ridiculous as the myths sound..that they DO go in favor of the offense since the ball did not beat them there...


Dont get me wrong...I LOVE outs....... but the defense has to be there with the ball before the runner.......


McCrowder..you are NOT allowed to vote here......:D

Speaking ASA

Yes, ties exists. No, they are not "do-overs".

In case of a tie, the BR/R should be ruled safe based upon 8.2.B & 8.7.C respectively.

Speaking mathematically, ties only exist at infinity. At any time prior to that one event or the other occured first.

WMB

Thanks Mike.......

I would agree....

That could depend on which theory you subscribe to concerning parallel universes and if there are indeed 11 dimension. In our dimension one event or the other almost always do occur with some difference in time, perhaps less than a nanosecond.

But if the two events do occur simultaneously, will it create a a warp in the time-space continuum? Will it turn the ball into some hideous color?

Or, one could hope, it will create a black hole in the first baseman's mitt, sucking in yipping coaches and leather-lunged parents?

(In my particular spot in the cosmos, as much as I want to get one of those 42 outs, the ball has to beat the runner...unless it is 19-2 in the bottom of the second with two outs and the team that is ahead on offense. Then, I gots me an out.)

Less than a nanosecond? How about in a femtosecond?

A femtosecond is one millionth of a nanosecond.

A nanosecond (ns or nsec) is one billionth of a second.

Other fairly close plays would be ........

A picosecond = one trillionth of a second, or one millionth of a microsecond.

An attosecond = one quintillionth of a second.

Of course ties exist, especially to the "naked eye". The ponies, NASCAR and dog tracks have the luxury of the photo finishes, so ties don't happen there.

In our umpiring world however, even though ties may happen, they are not part of our thought process. If the ball beats the runner we have the out. If not, we have the safe.

So yes the "tie does go to the runner" but you didn't hear that from me!

here in this world I agree with the above, However on the field "There is no such thing as a tie, you're either safe or your out."




Hmmmm... ain't said that all winter.

In the world of "human" judgement, ties certainly exist.

I'll settle this. If it appears to the umpire to be a tie, it's a do-over.

Not on a field where I am working!!!! ;)

As to the ponies and dogs, ties do happen and called a dead heat!

I sometimes wear one around my neck.

WMB:

Where did you learn your mathematics: "...ties only exist at infinity." Because that makes no sense whatsoever. If two events happen at the same time, that is a tie.

MTD, Sr.

Actually it does make sense..... The play only appears to be a tie when viewed by the human eye. But since that's the only method available to us on the field to measure the timing of the play it's called a tie. Other methods of measuring the timing of the event would show that it was indeed not a tie. In other words if you had a device that could view the action in, as the OP states, nanoseconds you would have a different view (timing measurement) of the play and I'd be willing to bet the farm that the play would not be a tie. :)

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.

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! :cool:

This application of common sense (as I see it) was taught to me a long time ago. It was also given to us at the pro camp I went to way back when I did that little ball thing.

It is good advice, and of all the times I used that idea I rarely had any arguement from the coaches.

It sounds to me that this theory is based on reducing the "arguments" we get from coaches when calls don't go their way. If we see an out, no matter how close and no matter if the defense turned what should have been an easy play into a close one, we should call the out. Its not our job to make the coaches happy. We're paid to enforce the rules and ensure a level playing field. This theory does neither.

You are right of course when we see an out, you have to call it.
I was refering to that really close one that can give you pause as to what you have. One of those that you just have to say, "D**m, that was close, what do I have."
I don't advocate applying my previous idea on anything but that rare play that does occur from time to time.
Neither do I care about making coaches happy. That just makes you a homer thus unreliable.

Personally, I like to have an appropriate smart A$$ retort for coachs. Even if I don't say it, it is nice to be able to say it in your head:p

While I don't subscribe to the above theory, I think I can safely say that they are not telling you to rule a safe baserunner out because of a great play or an out baserunner safe because of a poor one. They are saying that if it's so close that you don't know, give the benefit of doubt to the team making the great play or against the team making a poor one.

I don't do such a thing, but what they are suggesting is not nearly so egregious as you imply it is.

Maybe, but I do remember the thread that Scott originally refered to. The thread was started maybe a year or two ago and I distinctly remember the author indicating that you call the play according to what the crowd and coaches expect even if you knew different. My apologizes if I erroneously inferred that Scott was advocating calling a runner safe when he knew the runner was out. I agree we should give the benefit of the doubt. However, shouldn't that always be to the offense? I'm thinking of the old adage "Don't guess an out". If you aren't sure if the ball beat the runner then the runner is safe. If you aren't sure the runner beat the ball there, is the runner still safe? Don't we have to be sure of an out to call an out, otherwise the call is safe.

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!
;)

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