You know if the commentators would just take the simple HS umpiring classes offered all over the US... maybe they would not make stupid statements like that and have a better understanding of the rules...
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I turned the sound off at that point.
Buck is an idiot.
Buck is an idiot.
well who does a tie go to?
quote:Originally posted by Will:
well who does a tie go to?
The umpire. At that point, he makes a decision and all have to deal with it.
Its a myth that just wont die.........there are no ties......either the baserunner beats the ball or the ball beats the runner....the umpire decides which.....
Does the umpire really decide a "tie" or does the play itself determine it
Stan is absolutely right...."no such thing." Runner is out or runner is safe by judgement
Some umpires believe that there is no such thing as a tie. But it is obvious to me that it is possible for two players to touch a base at the same time (within the limits of human perception). Rules 6.05j and 7.08e state that the runner is out if he or the base is tagged before he touches the base. If you believe that a tie is possible, then the tag does not occur before the runner touches the base. In this case, the tie would indeed go to the runner.
Note that rule 7.08e was revised in 2010 to be consistent with 6.05j. In previous editions, the tie went to the batter/runner at first base but went to the defense at all other bases. The rules wouldn't have needed to be revised if there was no such thing as a tie.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Some umpires believe that there is no such thing as a tie. But it is obvious to me that it is possible for two players to touch a base at the same time (within the limits of human perception). Rules 6.05j and 7.08e state that the runner is out if he or the base is tagged before he touches the base. If you believe that a tie is possible, then the tag does not occur before the runner touches the base. In this case, the tie would indeed go to the runner.
Nice try.
MLB has for years stated that nothing in the rules is intended to provide for a tie. One thing happens before another, as is worded.
The odds in real life against the ball hitting the glove and the runner toucing the bag at exactly the same time are huge. Ties do not happen. It is simply academic gymnastics that certain people enjoy playing. By rule and reality, one event happens before the other. If you see ties, you shouldn't be umpiring.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Note that rule 7.08e was revised in 2010 to be consistent with 6.05j. In previous editions, the tie went to the batter/runner at first base but went to the defense at all other bases. The rules wouldn't have needed to be revised if there was no such thing as a tie.
There was never such a thing as a tie in the rulebook, ever. If the rulemakers wanted to consider a tie, they would have, and they wouldn't have disguised the word.I've always offered $100 to any coach or fan who could find that word in the rulebook. Some folks liked to contrive one, but none was ever intended or intepreted by MLB, PBUC. NCAA, FED or anyone else with any interpretive authority. It is specifically taught at the only MLB authorized training schools that there is no tie.
The change in the book was done for consistency and was one of over 230 errors in the rule book.
Ties happen all the time. Even with super slow motion instant replay, it can be impossible to tell with certainty whether the foot hit the bag first. So in real time, within the limits of human perception, ties are commonplace.
I agree that the rule change was done for consistency. That is what I stated in my previous post. Because the rules were conflicting in the past, we had to rely on authoritative interpretations and training schools to sort out the mess. With the rule change, it is quite clear that in order to get the out at any base, the tag of the base or the runner must come BEFORE the runner touches the base. Saying there is no such thing as a tie was just a cop-out so that we didn't have to deal with the discrepancy in the rules.
I agree that the rule change was done for consistency. That is what I stated in my previous post. Because the rules were conflicting in the past, we had to rely on authoritative interpretations and training schools to sort out the mess. With the rule change, it is quite clear that in order to get the out at any base, the tag of the base or the runner must come BEFORE the runner touches the base. Saying there is no such thing as a tie was just a cop-out so that we didn't have to deal with the discrepancy in the rules.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Some umpires believe that there is no such thing as a tie. But it is obvious to me that it is possible for two players to touch a base at the same time (within the limits of human perception). Rules 6.05j and 7.08e state that the runner is out if he or the base is tagged before he touches the base. If you believe that a tie is possible, then the tag does not occur before the runner touches the base. In this case, the tie would indeed go to the runner.
Nice try.
MLB has for years stated that nothing in the rules is intended to provide for a tie. One thing happens before another, as is worded.
The odds in real life against the ball hitting the glove and the runner toucing the bag at exactly the same time are huge. Ties do not happen. It is simply academic gymnastics that certain people enjoy playing. By rule and reality, one event happens before the other. If you see ties, you shouldn't be umpiring.
Jimmy... nicely put... so "coach as you know by rule... the runner must beat the throw and since in your perception... it was a "tie". He did not beat the throw and thus by rule he is out"
Oh and by the way the hands are not part of the bat...
No. Read the rule again. The runner does not have to beat the throw. The throw has to beat the runner. Umpires can perpetuate baseball myths just as well as coaches.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
No. Read the rule again. The runner does not have to beat the throw. The throw has to beat the runner. Umpires can perpetuate baseball myths just as well as coaches.
Ball beats the runner, runner is out. Runner beats the ball, runner is safe. There is no tie. The word exists only in the mind of those fond of mental gymnastics.
No myth here. I am dealing with the reality of the game.
We are left with accepting what Major League Baseball interprets, wants called and teaches, or accepting that which pretenders who apparently do not know the origin of the rules or how the rules are interpreted want.
Easy choice.
Now then, off to game 5.
Ball beats runner, runner is out. That's the rule (paraphrased). If the ball does not beat the runner, the defense has not satisfied the criterion for obtaining an out.
Resorting to name calling does not change the facts. I understand that it is customary for many umpires not to acknowledge that a tie is a possibility. But calling someone an idiot or a pretender rather than address the issue itself tends to undermine your position.
Resorting to name calling does not change the facts. I understand that it is customary for many umpires not to acknowledge that a tie is a possibility. But calling someone an idiot or a pretender rather than address the issue itself tends to undermine your position.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Ball beats runner, runner is out. That's the rule (paraphrased). If the ball does not beat the runner, the defense has not satisfied the criterion for obtaining an out.
Resorting to name calling does not change the facts. I understand that it is customary for many umpires not to acknowledge that a tie is a possibility. But calling someone an idiot or a pretender rather than address the issue itself tends to undermine your position.
Get used to it, that's what happens if you dare question "the gospel by Jimmy"
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
With the rule change, it is quite clear that in order to get the out at any base, the tag of the base or the runner must come BEFORE the runner touches the base. Saying there is no such thing as a tie was just a cop-out so that we didn't have to deal with the discrepancy in the rules.
You are ignoring 7.01 - "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out."
In other words, tie goes to the fielder!
The rules do not contemplate a tie. The bottom line - if you can't tell who beat what, grab the out. Everyone wants consistency.
I am not ignoring 7.01. Yes, the runner acquires the base if he touches it before he is out. But he is only out if the tag occurs before the touch. So in the event of a tie, the runner has touched the base and has not yet been put out. So I do not see a conflict between 7.01 and 6.05j or 7.08e.
I accept the fact that umpires are often taught to get an out on these banger plays and do not really have a problem with that because everyone knows the deal going in. But to say that the rules do not provide for what to do in the event of a tie is not correct. The defense has either made the tag before the runner touches the base or it hasn't. If you can believe in the concept of a tie, then the defense has not made the tag before the runner touched the base and by rule does not get the out. If you do not believe a tie could ever occur, then the point is moot.
I accept the fact that umpires are often taught to get an out on these banger plays and do not really have a problem with that because everyone knows the deal going in. But to say that the rules do not provide for what to do in the event of a tie is not correct. The defense has either made the tag before the runner touches the base or it hasn't. If you can believe in the concept of a tie, then the defense has not made the tag before the runner touched the base and by rule does not get the out. If you do not believe a tie could ever occur, then the point is moot.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
I am not ignoring 7.01. Yes, the runner acquires the base if he touches it before he is out. But he is only out if the tag occurs before the touch.
And he is only entitled to the base (safe) if he touches it before he or the base is tagged.
In the event of a tie, the runner has not touched the base before he or the base was tagged, so he is not entitled to the base (out).quote:So in the event of a tie, the runner has touched the base and has not yet been put out.
The rules do not contemplate a tie. If you are of the opinion that they do, and that a tie goes to the runner, then you are in the company of many, none of whom are umpires and none of whom sit on a rules committee at any level.
No. 7.01 just says that the runner is entitled to the base if he touches it before he has been put out. It does not say how or when the put-out is achieved. For that, you go to 7.08e. 7.08e does not say that the runner must touch the base before he or the base is tagged. 7.08e used to say this, but it was revised in the 2010 edition to be compatible with 6.05j. The rules committee has changed the rule. I am not making this up. It's there for anyone to see. If you choose not to accept it, that's up to you.
This is fascinating!
Let's agree that there are three conditions that could exist in any given play at first:
1) ball beats the runner
2) runner beats the ball
2) the ball and runner arriving at the base so close to the same instant that human perception simply cannot see the difference.
Can we agree on this?
Let's agree that there are three conditions that could exist in any given play at first:
1) ball beats the runner
2) runner beats the ball
2) the ball and runner arriving at the base so close to the same instant that human perception simply cannot see the difference.
Can we agree on this?
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
No. 7.01 just says that the runner is entitled to the base if he touches it before he has been put out. It does not say how or when the put-out is achieved. For that, you go to 7.08e. 7.08e does not say that the runner must touch the base before he or the base is tagged. 7.08e used to say this, but it was revised in the 2010 edition to be compatible with 6.05j. The rules committee has changed the rule. I am not making this up. It's there for anyone to see. If you choose not to accept it, that's up to you.
I choose to not accept your (and Joe Buck's) interpretation and instead accept what I have been taught by major league umpires, minor league umpires, CWS umpires, with zero disagreement among any of them.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Note that rule 7.08e was revised in 2010 to be consistent with 6.05j. In previous editions, the tie went to the batter/runner at first base but went to the defense at all other bases. The rules wouldn't have needed to be revised if there was no such thing as a tie.
There was never such a thing as a tie in the rulebook, ever. If the rulemakers wanted to consider a tie, they would have, and they wouldn't have disguised the word.I've always offered $100 to any coach or fan who could find that word in the rulebook. Some folks liked to contrive one, but none was ever intended or intepreted by MLB, PBUC. NCAA, FED or anyone else with any interpretive authority. It is specifically taught at the only MLB authorized training schools that there is no tie.
The change in the book was done for consistency and was one of over 230 errors in the rule book.
PM me and I'll tell you where to send the che.. er cash.
4.10 (a) A regulation game consists of nine innings, unless extended because of a tie score
quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Ball beats runner, runner is out. That's the rule (paraphrased). If the ball does not beat the runner, the defense has not satisfied the criterion for obtaining an out.
Resorting to name calling does not change the facts. I understand that it is customary for many umpires not to acknowledge that a tie is a possibility. But calling someone an idiot or a pretender rather than address the issue itself tends to undermine your position.
Get used to it, that's what happens if you dare question "the gospel by Jimmy"
1. I did not call a poster a name, rather, I referred to those who are ignorant of very basic MLB interpretations as "pretenders".
2. This is not the gospel of any "person". What Dash, I and others have posted is the interpretation of MLB, what they choose to have taught and what they choose to have called. Some may prefer their own interpretation, but if they are umpires, they have no right ignore reality.
To advocate for a contrary interpretation is to either be ignorant, or amusingly stubborn, or trolling.
3. Hopefully, game 6 will be more enjoyable.
quote:Originally posted by jjk:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
Note that rule 7.08e was revised in 2010 to be consistent with 6.05j. In previous editions, the tie went to the batter/runner at first base but went to the defense at all other bases. The rules wouldn't have needed to be revised if there was no such thing as a tie.
There was never such a thing as a tie in the rulebook, ever. If the rulemakers wanted to consider a tie, they would have, and they wouldn't have disguised the word.I've always offered $100 to any coach or fan who could find that word in the rulebook. Some folks liked to contrive one, but none was ever intended or intepreted by MLB, PBUC. NCAA, FED or anyone else with any interpretive authority. It is specifically taught at the only MLB authorized training schools that there is no tie.
The change in the book was done for consistency and was one of over 230 errors in the rule book.
PM me and I'll tell you where to send the che.. er cash.
4.10 (a) A regulation game consists of nine innings, unless extended because of a tie score
You know, I forgot that one. I'll have to go back to using the terminology "tie goes to anyone."
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
This is fascinating!
Let's agree that there are three conditions that could exist in any given play at first:
1) ball beats the runner
2) runner beats the ball
2) the ball and runner arriving at the base so close to the same instant that human perception simply cannot see the difference.
Can we agree on this?
Not those professionally trained. Either the ball beats the runner or the runner beats the ball. There is no consideration by MLB, PBUC or umpire schools for an alleged situation where one or the other does not happen.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:
No. 7.01 just says that the runner is entitled to the base if he touches it before he has been put out. It does not say how or when the put-out is achieved. For that, you go to 7.08e. 7.08e does not say that the runner must touch the base before he or the base is tagged. 7.08e used to say this, but it was revised in the 2010 edition to be compatible with 6.05j. The rules committee has changed the rule. I am not making this up. It's there for anyone to see. If you choose not to accept it, that's up to you.
What I choose to accept is that the owner of the rulebook, the maker of the rules, interprets the rule as requiring one of two things, ball beats runner, runner beats ball. What I choose to accept is what I learned at proschool and practice at every level I have worked from HS to MiLB games.
You, on the other hand apparently refuse to accept MLB's interpretation of their own rule. That's okay. It won't ever affect me or my games.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
You know, I forgot that one. I'll have to go back to using the terminology "tie goes to anyone."
I found one earlier than that, so I get the money:
A TIE GAME is a regulation game which is called when each team has the same number of runs.
This is all I am going to call in my games. All I call is out or safe and that is it. If someone says "Tie goes to the runner", my answer will be "It wasn't a tie. Ball beat him." And, that will be it.
I judge one or the other happening first. I do not believe in ties and won't contemplate one while I am watching/calling a game. Out or safe and that is the end of my choices for a play.
I judge one or the other happening first. I do not believe in ties and won't contemplate one while I am watching/calling a game. Out or safe and that is the end of my choices for a play.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
This is fascinating!
Let's agree that there are three conditions that could exist in any given play at first:
1) ball beats the runner
2) runner beats the ball
2) the ball and runner arriving at the base so close to the same instant that human perception simply cannot see the difference.
Can we agree on this?
Not those professionally trained. Either the ball beats the runner or the runner beats the ball. There is no consideration by MLB, PBUC or umpire schools for an alleged situation where one or the other does not happen.
I agree with Jimmy........from clinic to clinic and level to level, my experience is that my instructors have consistently taught that as an umpire either the ball beats the runner or the runner beats the ball and you make the determination which happens first......
If there comes a day when I can not make that determination confidently, I will retire...
quote:Let's agree that there are three conditions that could exist in any given play at first:
.......
2) the ball and runner arriving at the base so close to the same instant that human perception simply cannot see the difference.
Can we agree on this?
The answer to this is quite simple. Umpires are not human and therefore make godly decisions that human fans in their frailty can not perceive. The problem arises when the umpires fail to act god like and create situations like the Jim Joyce blown call costing Galarraga his perfect game. I've never heard an umpire yell, "It's a tie, runner gets the base." Therefore I believe Joe Buck to be a nit and prefer to watch the game with the volume muted.
While the chances are extremely small for an actual tie to occur, there does remain the possibility that a tie could occur. I understand that all the umpire organizations teach that there is no tie. I would think that this is because an umpire has to make a determination that the runner was either out or safe. There is no room for a call other than one of those two.
However, reality dictates that there is the possibility of a tie. You simply cannot say that it is impossible for that to happen - physically. I suppose you could say that in an umpires world it does not happen, but in the physical world it is possible that it does happen.
In that light, I would have to agree with Yakyu. In reading the rule, the tag must reach the base BEFORE the runner does. The rule does not state the converse - that the runner must reach the base before the ball does. Therefore, logically, if they reach at the same time (regardless of how small the chances are), the tag did not reach the base before the runner and therefore the runner is safe. The runner is not required to reach the base before the tag, the tag is required to reach the base before the runner. If that requirement is not met, the runner is safe.
Once again, I understand what the umpires are saying here. That interpretation is not taught by any umpiring organization. But if you step away from that and just look at it from a purely logical way, it can be interpreted as a tie goes to the runner.
I will add that this call, as well as any other, are at the judgement of the umpire. If the umpire declares that the runner beat the throw, I'm good with that. I'm really not trying to agitate or put down the umpires here, I really value their input and rule clarifications. Just thought I'd make a comment on what I have seen and heard here.
However, reality dictates that there is the possibility of a tie. You simply cannot say that it is impossible for that to happen - physically. I suppose you could say that in an umpires world it does not happen, but in the physical world it is possible that it does happen.
In that light, I would have to agree with Yakyu. In reading the rule, the tag must reach the base BEFORE the runner does. The rule does not state the converse - that the runner must reach the base before the ball does. Therefore, logically, if they reach at the same time (regardless of how small the chances are), the tag did not reach the base before the runner and therefore the runner is safe. The runner is not required to reach the base before the tag, the tag is required to reach the base before the runner. If that requirement is not met, the runner is safe.
Once again, I understand what the umpires are saying here. That interpretation is not taught by any umpiring organization. But if you step away from that and just look at it from a purely logical way, it can be interpreted as a tie goes to the runner.
I will add that this call, as well as any other, are at the judgement of the umpire. If the umpire declares that the runner beat the throw, I'm good with that. I'm really not trying to agitate or put down the umpires here, I really value their input and rule clarifications. Just thought I'd make a comment on what I have seen and heard here.
This thread is like a car wreck - I want to not look but for some reason I can't stop checking in. I'm truly amazed how feverently people are arguing this point.
Well here's my two cents - either he's out or he's safe....make the call blue.
Well here's my two cents - either he's out or he's safe....make the call blue.
quote:Originally posted by bballman:
While the chances are extremely small for an actual tie to occur, there does remain the possibility that a tie could occur.
Mathematically, the odds approach infinity against a tie.
quote:
But if you step away from that and just look at it from a purely logical way, it can be interpreted as a tie goes to the runner.
Feel free to interpret the rule incorrectly, as others have.
Prior to about three years ago, the Official Rulebook of Baseball contained a rule that stated a runner was out if he ran more than three feet outside of the basepath to avoid a tag and then went on to state that a basepath was a direct line between bases.
That rule was forever interpreted and taught by MLB and the school that the basepath was really a direct line between the runner and the base to which he was advancing and was created at the time a play was being made. I wonder if those that refuse to accept official interpretation that ties don't exist also required runner to run in a straight line bewteen bases before that rule was finally reworded.
This is just an example of the difference bewteen how a rule appears in the book and how MLB dictates it's enforcement. This is nothing new. Those umpires who choose to work hard, seek training and steadily improve as most coaches and fans would like, learn and know the proper interpretations.
Those who enjoy playing word games with rules rathen than understanding the rule can have a field day with the rulebook. It has over 230 errors or omissions or inconsistencies that have been identified. A couple of have been cleaned up in the last couple of years.
According to rule 1, baseball is game between teams of 9 players each. Really? Even in the American League? There are many other even more glaring "mistakes". Check out rule 8 sometime.
Bottom line, baseballfan, you can choose to believe an interpretation that is contrary to what MLB, MiLB, PBUC, and both pro schools use. You aren't alone. There are many fans, beginning umpires and lower level coaches who share that belief.
That rule was forever interpreted and taught by MLB and the school that the basepath was really a direct line between the runner and the base to which he was advancing and was created at the time a play was being made. I wonder if those that refuse to accept official interpretation that ties don't exist also required runner to run in a straight line bewteen bases before that rule was finally reworded.
This is just an example of the difference bewteen how a rule appears in the book and how MLB dictates it's enforcement. This is nothing new. Those umpires who choose to work hard, seek training and steadily improve as most coaches and fans would like, learn and know the proper interpretations.
Those who enjoy playing word games with rules rathen than understanding the rule can have a field day with the rulebook. It has over 230 errors or omissions or inconsistencies that have been identified. A couple of have been cleaned up in the last couple of years.
According to rule 1, baseball is game between teams of 9 players each. Really? Even in the American League? There are many other even more glaring "mistakes". Check out rule 8 sometime.
Bottom line, baseballfan, you can choose to believe an interpretation that is contrary to what MLB, MiLB, PBUC, and both pro schools use. You aren't alone. There are many fans, beginning umpires and lower level coaches who share that belief.
quote:Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Mathematically, the odds approach infinity against a tie.
Yes, and every time it doesn't happen, the chances become greater.
A tie cannot exist at the infinite molecular level. The runners cleat touching the fabric of the base at the same infinite time as the leather or stitch touches the firstbaseman's leather does not exist. A human may perceive a near tie as a tie because of limitations in senses but then the call might be made wrong anyway since at the molecular level the ball actually might have made contact before the shoe did the base. So the umpire's approach is more cerebral than you think. There are no ties, period. Just good and bad calls.
How is that the word "interpret" keeps cropping up in this discussion?
Are the rules open to interpretation?
Are the rules open to interpretation?
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
How is that the word "interpret" keeps cropping up in this discussion?
Are the rules open to interpretation?
All rules are open to interpretation. Only, we should interpret the rules uniformly. And, those who know/care about getting the right materials/training know the authoritative/universal interpretations. Or, we at least know where to look for them. Which is a problem for the average fan/coach/player/umpire, they don't know about them nor make any effort to learn about them.
As mstaylor will agree to, the game is played 80% of the time with only 20% of the rules(or something like that). And, fans/players/coaches may know even less than 20% of them.