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

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
How is that the word "interpret" keeps cropping up in this discussion?

Are the rules open to interpretation?

As I recall, you have come here before asking for an interpretation about a rule. So surely you know that rules are interpreted.

Some of these interpretations are in the casebook, some are not. Some are in the PBUC manual. Some are in the MLBUM and some are found in the JEA and Jaska/Roder. And, occasionally some are sent out from MLB and PBUC via email as issues arise.

"A tie cannot exist at the infinite molecular level."

Now who is doing mental gymnastics? Every call made by an umpire is based on his perception (sight, sound, etc.).

Let me take one last whack at this dead horse.

There are three possible perceptions here:
1. You could perceive that the tag beat the runner.
2. You could perceive that the runner beat the tag.
3. You could be unable to distinguish which happened first.

To deny that #3 ever occurs is just flat out disingenuous. We all understand that umpires are taught to call an out on #3. This is by umpire convention, not by rule. To say that one does not know the rules if they do not favor the accepted convention is not accurate. This convention may or may not change now that the rules have been revised to eliminate the discrepancy that previously existed in the wording of the rules for different bases.

OK. I think that my stick is broken now so I won't beat this dead horse anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:

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.

That is incorrect. The odds remain the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Yakyu:
OK. I think that my stick is broken now so I won't beat this dead horse anymore.

Thank god. I am getting tired of reading how you won't accept that it doesn't happen.

I don't believe in ties. So, they don't happen. It isn't going to change anything. I don't care what you want to call it. Just the simple fact that ties don't happen and no umpire is calling it a tie. Out or safe and that is it. #3 doesn't exist or occur. Not in any game I have seen/heard/umpired.

One or the other happens first hence the word "before" in the rules. The only ones who advocate "tie goes to the runner" either coach/cheer/play. In most cases, none of which take the time to actually learn the rules of the game they are involved in. No umpire advocates or acknowledges the possibility of a tie based on how the rules are written. Nor, do we even care about the concept of a perceived "tie".

quote:

Originally posted by Yakyu:


There are three possible perceptions here:

1. You could perceive that the tag beat the runner.
2. You could perceive that the runner beat the tag.
3. You could be unable to distinguish which happened first.

To deny that #3 ever occurs is just flat out disingenuous. We all understand that umpires are taught to call an out on #3.

Never in proschool, or since then, have I been taught to call an out #3. What I have been taught is that #3 does not exist.

quote:

To say that one does not know the rules if they do not favor the accepted convention is not accurate. This convention may or may not change now that the rules have been revised to eliminate the discrepancy that previously existed in the wording of the rules for different bases.

1. It is not a "convention" or opinion or anything similar. It is the interpretation of MLB, and the proschools they authorize to train umpires.

2. What is accurate is that if you do not enforce the rules in the manner interpreted by MLB, you are inaccurate.

quote:

OK. I think that my stick is broken now so I won't beat this dead horse anymore.

One can only hope.

There is no tie, because humans cannot distinguish a tie correctly with our human senses. If you want to declare a tie at firstbase, explain to me how you determined it. At the infinite level, there is no tie ! To award a runner the base because you declared it a tie, is worse than making the distinction between out and safe. You are awarding a base to a runner by virtue of something that doesn't exist.

I have tried to stay fairly clear of this but I have read the thread. When you call a play at first you use two senses, sight and hearing. You are taught to watch the touch and listen for the catch. Think of the difference of the speed of sound and the speed of light, if you hear see at the same time then the catch was first, OUT! In conversation I tell people that ties go to the umpire and that's an out. Then I explain that you aren't going to really see a tie so it will never actually happen.

A most fitting conclusion, Michael.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I have tried to stay fairly clear of this but I have read the thread. When you call a play at first you use two senses, sight and hearing. You are taught to watch the touch and listen for the catch. Think of the difference of the speed of sound and the speed of light, if you hear see at the same time then the catch was first, OUT! In conversation I tell people that ties go to the umpire and that's an out. Then I explain that you aren't going to really see a tie so it will never actually happen.

Great point on the sound...what was the play a few years back in the playoffs that the fielder at 1B caught it with his bare-hand and the call was badly missed...umps basically said later that it takes them off guard when you don't have the sound of the catch.

Actually, at the distance an umpire typically stands, the time differential between the arrival of light and sound waves is only a few hundredths of a second. This time increment is subliminal, below the threshold for conscious perception.

I guess the horse was still stirring a little bit after all. Sorry. Of all the arguments on either side, "tie goes to the umpire" is as good as any.

OK... let's talk about the "hands are part of the Bat"...LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Yakyu:
Actually, at the distance an umpire typically stands, the time differential between the arrival of light and sound waves is only a few hundredths of a second. This time increment is subliminal, below the threshold for conscious perception.

Actually it is not below the threshold. I compare to a grace note in music...a note that has no accountable value in time and is played as close to the next note as possible. The effect can be heard, but not counted. If there are any drummers here, the equivalent would be the rudiment known as the Flam.

quote:

Originally posted by Yakyu:
Actually, at the distance an umpire typically stands, the time differential between the arrival of light and sound waves is only a few hundredths of a second. This time increment is subliminal, below the threshold for conscious perception.

Well, Jimmy beat me to some of this...

Two visual events can be discerned at 4/100ths of a second. Two audible events are discernible at about 1.6/100ths of a second. "A few hundredths" is more than enough to make a decision.

And, as a drummer, I cannot read music.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:
Yes, and every time it doesn't happen, the chances become greater.

That is incorrect. The odds remain the same.

You are correct. I love Gambler's Fallacy.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by Yakyu:
Actually, at the distance an umpire typically stands, the time differential between the arrival of light and sound waves is only a few hundredths of a second. This time increment is subliminal, below the threshold for conscious perception.

Well, Jimmy beat me to some of this...

Two visual events can be discerned at 4/100ths of a second. Two audible events are discernible at about 1.6/100ths of a second. "A few hundredths" is more than enough to make a decision.

And, as a drummer, I cannot read music.

Never played tymps? I was a trumpet player so I read music very well.

Interesting............

first one umpire states that there is no such thing as a tie and then another states that the tie goes to the umpire.

Which one is it?

All in unison now.....................

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Interesting............

first one umpire states that there is no such thing as a tie and then another states that the tie goes to the umpire.

Which one is it?

Interesting....

You either didn't get the joke, or you're just trying to find something else to blame on umpires.

Which one is it?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Interesting............

first one umpire states that there is no such thing as a tie and then another states that the tie goes to the umpire.

Which one is it?

All in unison now.....................

I'll give you a 3rd TR:

In the event of a tie, if the 1B coach is giving the safe sign, the runner is automatically out.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Interesting............

first one umpire states that there is no such thing as a tie and then another states that the tie goes to the umpire.

Which one is it?

All in unison now.....................

I'll give you a 3rd TR:

In the event of a tie, if the 1B coach is giving the safe sign, the runner is automatically out.

uh-oh. Another joke. Who can we get to explain it TR before he bursts an artery.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Interesting............

first one umpire states that there is no such thing as a tie and then another states that the tie goes to the umpire.

Which one is it?

All in unison now.....................

Quite the opposite.....TR..

Yakyu does not identify himself as an umpire....

and all the umpires who posted are in unison that "ties" are not trained nor recognized....

TR:

To illustrate how interpretations of the rules are a continuing part of the game and how the rule book contains errors, incomplete/confusing language and inconsistencies that MLB, for whatever reason fails to correct, consider:

OBR 2.00 OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Batter hits ball back to F1. F1 after gloving the ball between the mound and firstbase, runs toward the B/R who is running to first. F1 with ball in glove, trips and while on the ground reaches with his bare hand forward and trips the B/R.

Ruling: Obstruction, even though the fielder DID have possesion of the ball.

This ruling is an interpretation that held that even if the fielder had the ball, if he impeded the progress of the runner without the intent of making a tag, it would still be obstruction. The interpretation was approved by MLB and, although the rule as written hasn't changed, the interpretation carries the weight of rule.

One needs to be careful of a dictionary reading of the some of the rules, like using verbal gymnastics to try to creat a "tie" at a base, and stay current with what Evans refers to as "historical notes and professional interpretation."

Let me ask a hypothetical question: Assume umpires had complete and perfect perception, and could actually determine that there was an actual tie.

What would the call be?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Let me ask a hypothetical question: Assume umpires had complete and perfect perception, and could actually determine that there was an actual tie.

What would the call be?

A better question would "If I were to ask a hypothetical question, would you answer it?"

1. I deal in the real world.
2. MLB interps say there are no ties.
3. Proschool has taught me there are no ties.
4. Throughout the history of professional baseball there have been no ties.
5. Physically, the chance of a tie is infinitesimal.

Ergo, there are no ties.

I see Jimmy is his usual condescending self. Perhaps he learned that in proschool.

What he didn't learn at proschool was how not to blatantly contradict himself in the space of a couple sentences.

"There are no ties, there are no ties, there are no ties.....Physically, the chance of a tie is infinitesimal."

"Ergo there are no ties"

Huh?

Good job dealing in the "real world" there, Jimmy.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I see Jimmy is his usual condescending self. Perhaps he learned that in proschool.

What he didn't learn at proschool was how not to blatantly contradict himself in the space of a couple sentences.

"There are no ties, there are no ties, there are no ties.....Physically, the chance of a tie is infinitesimal."

"Ergo there are no ties"

Huh?

Good job dealing in the "real world" there, Jimmy.

Maybe you should pay attention to what he said.

"Physically, the chance of a tie is infinitesimal" and "There are no ties" are not contradictory. If there ever is a tie, then it would become contradictory.

"The chance of me winning the lottery is infinitesimal" and "I don't win the lottery" aren't contradictory, are they? If they are, why am I not a millionaire?

Just gotta appreciate the umpire doubletalk, how they interpret what they want to interpret-- and the umpires do stick togethewr do they not?

Funny, so many umpires interpret the same way. If that is called "sticking together", so be it. We do not need to change your mind. You just have to deal with it when we call what we call.

No double talk. No hidden meaning. Straight forward and I don't care what you think of it. What you have to comment about it. Funny how no umpires, the ones in charge of calling the rules, have no issues with what is talked about.

We, umpires, do not have the issue of accepting the interpretations. Only coaches/fans/players do: The ones who have to abide by the rules. Also funny how non-umpires see things as double talk and not actual umpires.

quote:

"The chance of me winning the lottery is infinitesimal" and "I don't win the lottery" aren't contradictory, are they? If they are, why am I not a millionaire?

No, Matt, his statement is the equivalent of saying:

"The chance of winning the lottery is infinitesimal ... nobody wins the lottery."

The point is, he says "There are no ties." And then in the next statement admits that there is indeed a small chance of a tie.

That is a contradiction.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
No, Matt, his statement is the equivalent of saying:

"The chance of winning the lottery is infinitesimal ... nobody wins the lottery."

Not really.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
The point is, he says "There are no ties." And then in the next statement admits that there is indeed a small chance of a tie.

That is a contradiction.

Chance of a tie is not equal to existence of a tie.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Just gotta appreciate the umpire doubletalk, how they interpret what they want to interpret-- and the umpires do stick togethewr do they not?

TR:

Really?

1. No double talk...very consistent. There are no ties in safe/out plays.

2. We do not make the interpretations. They are made by those who make the rules (MLB), and taught by those who enforce the tules (MLB umpires) and those who teach the rules (MLB authorized proschools and PBUC)

3. It is only appropriate that those who enforce the rules agree. You have complained in previous posts that umpires aren't consistent, and when you find that they interpret a rule consistently you b!tch. Hmmmmmmm.



Now then, who would you have us follow? Coaches? Which ones? You or your opponent? Fans? Parents?

Get real. You would be screaming like a Banshee if an umpire began using coach or fan based interpretations and refused to use professional interpretations.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I see Jimmy is his usual condescending self. Perhaps he learned that in proschool.

What he didn't learn at proschool was how not to blatantly contradict himself in the space of a couple sentences.

"There are no ties, there are no ties, there are no ties.....Physically, the chance of a tie is infinitesimal."

"Ergo there are no ties"

Huh?

Good job dealing in the "real world" there, Jimmy.

Funny how you focus only on one factor and ignore the other four. Selective reading?

Hilarious. This reminds me of the guy who, when told by a gorgeous woman he has a one in a trillion chance of dating her, he replies..."So, there is a chance!"

You should stick around. You're funny.

quote:

Chance of a tie is not equal to existence of a tie.

No, but the chance of a tie is definitely inconsistent with the statement "There can never be a tie."

And Jimmy - if the gorgeous woman said: "There is no way ever you could date me," and then said "There is a one in a trillion chance you could date me," then she would be inconsistent.

That is the equivalent of what you said. I didn't "ignore" any other "factors." I simply pointed out your glaring contradiction.

Hey, guys, I get that umpires have to call plays safe or out, and that if the rules anticipated and covered treatment of perceived ties it would in some way perhaps undermine the authority of the umpires.

I get that. So I have no problem at all with the way the rules are set up, ball beats runner or runner beats ball.

But to claim that there are not some small percentage of situations in which the play is so close that for all practical purposes humans cannot distinguish out or safe - well, that claim is what really undermines credibility, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
IMHO.

Everyone is entltled to an opinion.

Umpires are required to follow interpretations.

I am not far from closing this because it is going nowhere. Before I do I am curious about opposing views. On the umpire's side, myself included, that there are no ties, either the ball is there first or the runner is. There are situations where we can use discretion or judgment, whatever you want to call it, but on a force play it is black and white, safe or out. There is no grey area in this play and 4 pgs of discussion on it amazes me. On the coaches side there seems to be some resistance to the idea that this a black and white issue and want to add grey in the picture that simply can't exist.
I don't understand why this is a hard concept. There is no double talk involved, no blue curtain. The thing we always hear is the inconsistancy between groups of umpires but here we are all in agreenment how to call it and we get chastised for covering each other.

Michael,
Yes, umpire practice is to act as if there are no ties, and it appears that some posting here believe that to be true in a physical sense. However, common sense tells us that there must be some minimum time interval below which the order of two events can't be determined. As someone who has spent several years designing equipment to make such time measurements, I can assure you that common sense is correct, and furthermore in baseball the chances of a "tie" are much greater than "infinitesimal".

So it is aggravating to some to read edgy and assertive posts repeatedly claiming as fact something which is obviously not true.

On the other hand, I think that the non-umpires are missing a key point: an umpire needs to make a call, and the best way to do that is to act as if no ties are possible. Perhaps it helps to do that if the umpire believes (as he is trained) that no tie is possible.

If it is desired, I can post an explanation (just my opinion) of why umpires should act as if no tie is possible.

First, I don't think this thread should be closed. People keep posting, so at least some of us think it is going somewhere. For my part, it has been very revealing.

3FG has it exactly right, and what he said is pretty much what I tried to say above.

It IS aggravating to be repeatedly told, in a very strident and often insulting tone, something that is so obviously untrue.

And as I said, I think it undermines the credibility of those who make the claim.

I also agree with 3FG that it is the best policy for the rules to be written as if no ties are possible. But it strains credulity to try to make us believe that in reality, there are not plays that are simply so close that human perception cannot determine out or safe.

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.

Actually in my opinion the issue of exactly how an umpire reaches the safe/out call is primarily one of mechanics.

6.05 A batter is out when—
(j) After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base;

7.08 Any runner is out when—
(e) He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out.

In other words, a runner (or batter/runner) is not out unless he or the base is tagged before he touches the base,

and

the runner is not entitled to the base unless he touches it before he is out.

So, if there is a tie, the runner (or batter/runner) is not out, but he is not entitled to the base.

In the event of a tie, the umpire would have no choice but to send the runner back to the dugout and not record an out.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
6.05 A batter is out when—
(j) After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base;

7.08 Any runner is out when—
(e) He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out.

In other words, a runner (or batter/runner) is not out unless he or the base is tagged before he touches the base,

and

the runner is not entitled to the base unless he touches it before he is out.

So, if there is a tie, the runner (or batter/runner) is not out, but he is not entitled to the base.

In the event of a tie, the umpire would have no choice but to send the runner back to the dugout and not record an out.