Joe Buck comment last night... "Tie goes to the Runner"

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

Rob,
I didn't say (at least I didn't intend to) that the rules should be changed, or that there is anything wrong with the way safe/out calls are made now.

I probably worded that poorly - I wasn't trying to imply that. The rule as it stands now is written as if no tie is possible, and I agree with you that this is appropriate.

But it is a totally different question whether in reality there are plays that are a "tie" as far as the ability of humans to perceive them. And to deny this seems to me to be a very odd thing.

Let's try this. Despite 3 fingers assertion, a physicist friend who works at Livermore advises that the chances of a "the ball and the foot arriving at the precise same point in time" is "beyond miniscule."

I have never seen such a thing and have never met anyone who has.

Whether it is due to training, experience, information or a combination of the three, I am comfortable accepting that there is no tie.

If that's odd, so be it. My integrity is intact, regardless of assertions by an internet baseball fan.

Jimmy,
Why do you say "despite 3 fingers assertion"? There is no contradiction between what your physicist friend said and what I wrote.

In order to judge which of two events occurred first, the events must be observed. (The events also must be defined with sufficient precision so that a unique time value can be associated with the event.) The process of observation, whether done by humans or sophisticated instruments, is always imperfect. So while an event occurs at a particular instant in time, it can only be measured to have occurred within some window of time.

For the kinds of events that take place in baseball, humans can resolve separations of as small as few milliseconds up to a few tens of milliseconds, depending on the circumstances. If we use high frame rate cameras to dilate time, a second issue arises: we don't have an exact definition of e.g. what constitutes the "ball arriving". Is it when the ball first touches the leading edge of the fielder's glove? When the ball strikes the webbing? When the the impact makes a noise? The arrival time would vary by a few milliseconds depending on which criterion is used. (I'm in no way advocating changing the rules to delineate the exact moment the ball arrives; things are fine just as they are.)

If we define a close play as one in which the runner is within 1.5 feet to the bag, and that the runner is moving at 30 feet per second, we see that around 10% of close plays are too close to distinguish, assuming the umpire can resolve events separated by 5 milliseconds.

The main question in this thread was "how should a umpire decide if the play is to close to distinguish"? The interesting answer is that umpires don't allow themselves conscious indecision--they are trained to decide one way or the other.

3FG -
OK, so you are saying that about 10% of close plays will have the ball arriving within 5/1000ths of a second of the time that the runner touches first.

Further, 5 milliseconds is on the low end of the range of what human perception can distinguish.

Very interesting stuff.

I still don't get why the umpires on this board are so unwilling to acknowledge that there are limits on human ability to, as you so intelligently put it, "resolve separations."

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
3FG -
OK, so you are saying that about 10% of close plays will have the ball arriving within 5/1000ths of a second of the time that the runner touches first.

Further, 5 milliseconds is on the low end of the range of what human perception can distinguish.

Very interesting stuff.

I still don't get why the umpires on this board are so unwilling to acknowledge that there are limits on human ability to, as you so intelligently put it, "resolve separations."

I am not speaking for others.

I am acknowledging that I am calling what I have on the play. Either the ball beat the runner or the runner beat the ball. That's it. No gray area. No trying to figure out if what happened is too close to tell.

I'll leave that up to fans/coaches/players. I make a decision. It's not a matter of "unwilling to acknowledge". We do not live on the same level as fans/coaches/players. We do not have the luxury of being indecisive like them. We make a decision and that is it. If we acknowledge that something happened so close that we couldn't tell, THEN our credibility is shot.

Tell a coach you couldn't tell what happened first and see how happy he is about that. Ties do not exist in baseball. Not in the rules and not to umpires. Out or safe based on which happened first. Nothing else exists.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
In order to judge which of two events occurred first, the events must be observed. (The events also must be defined with sufficient precision so that a unique time value can be associated with the event.) The process of observation, whether done by humans or sophisticated instruments, is always imperfect. So while an event occurs at a particular instant in time, it can only be measured to have occurred within some window of time.

For the kinds of events that take place in baseball, humans can resolve separations of as small as few milliseconds up to a few tens of milliseconds, depending on the circumstances. If we use high frame rate cameras to dilate time, a second issue arises: we don't have an exact definition of e.g. what constitutes the "ball arriving". Is it when the ball first touches the leading edge of the fielder's glove? When the ball strikes the webbing? When the the impact makes a noise? The arrival time would vary by a few milliseconds depending on which criterion is used. (I'm in no way advocating changing the rules to delineate the exact moment the ball arrives; things are fine just as they are.)

If we define a close play as one in which the runner is within 1.5 feet to the bag, and that the runner is moving at 30 feet per second, we see that around 10% of close plays are too close to distinguish, assuming the umpire can resolve events separated by 5 milliseconds.

The main question in this thread was "how should a umpire decide if the play is to close to distinguish"? The interesting answer is that umpires don't allow themselves conscious indecision--they are trained to decide one way or the other.

I'm only answering for me.....

Just like Mr. Umpire, I am acknowledging that I am calling what I have on the play. Either the ball beat the runner or the runner beat the ball. That's it for me too..... I have 2 options safe or out....No grey area for me either....it's one out of many in the game I am being paid to call...to the best of my ability...

I do not have the luxury of trying to figure out if what happened is too close to tell....even if that is a remote possiblilty.....the direction in the rule book is to either call the man safe or out.

It's not a matter of "unwilling to acknowledge"....as with what 3FG says there is technology that could proove that a tie might have existed if we give the parameters of what touch means........but thats not baseball...

What I am agreeing to is what 3FG states.....as an
umpire I do not allow myself any conscious indecision.....I have been trained and have trained myself over the years to decide one way or the other.....indecision is the one trait an umpire can not afford to have.....

I have to rely on my training to make that call confidently and to the best of my ability then move on to the XX or so other calls that need to be made to properly conduct a baseball game.....

Rob,
It depends on whether you use the vernacular or strict interpretation of inifinitesimal. The vernacular means extremely small chance. The strict interpretation means effectively 0 chance.

i.e. 1/infinity = 0

OK... since I started this... I think now is a good time to "lock" it. I don't think we need to delete it... there are some good and not so good points... it makes for good reading when you don't have anything else to do....

Ok Mr. Taylor... and Mr PIAA... this horse is dead...time to put it in the deep freeze for all the generations who want to look, read and come to their own conclusions..

Geez! What is this impulse to shut down debate? You guys rule that you are tired of being challenged and so lock down the thread?

This isn't a baseball diamond. You get to do that at your discretion when you are the umpire in a baseball game. But there is no reason at all to stop this thread according to the standards of this site.

But now we have already had three separate posters, all of them umpires, essentially call for this thread to be locked.

What gives? Are you guys (and I am talking only about the folks that have suggested closing this thread, not all umpires) that uneasy with your authority being challenged?

You are not the umpires on this thread. You can't just eject us because you are weary with the challenge to your authority.