Jump to content
  • 0
Guest Nick

Live ball

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

I think this is the change to the rule that Mr. Jimurray referred to in an earlier post--

Changes for the 2010 Major League Season

  • Revised language of rule on putting out forced runner. (Rule 7.08(e))

And here is a link to an analysis written in 2012 by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports of this question of does a tie go to the runner? His conclusion is—yes, a tie does go to the runner.

https://www.closecallsports.com/2012/07/rules-605j-701-and-708e-tie-goes-to.html

... and there have been changes since then.  Not saying the concept has changed, but that it is time to update the references with correct documentation.  There is no 7.08(e) now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You don’t really think that we don’t know that, do you? The OBR book was reformatted and recodified in 2015—the change to the rule we were referring to was in 2010 and I copied it directly from a list of changes in that edition. The 2015 edition of the OBR included a cross-reference table at the end of the book showing each new number and its corresponding number from the 2014 edition. Did I make a mistake in expecting that you and everyone else would realize that?

The article I linked to was written in 2012 so, of course, it used the rule numbering format that was current at the time. Or do you really want me to edit quoted old text even though I was not the author?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ok, I see how you are getting there and how they worked around it ... had to clear my mind and use the Umpire Force ... ;)

Before = out

Everything else = not out = safe

 

I concede OBR.  I still don’t think it is a good idea to blindly post “It’s the rule” when you are on a site whose purpose is to educate umpires, most of whom will spend their career working NFHS and below and maybe, if they are lucky, NCAA.

While I said there is a conflict in NFHS and NCAA, @beerguy might have resolved the conflict in NFHS for me in this treatise. 

  •  
  • Established Member
  • 512
  • 2,158 posts
On 2/13/2018 at 9:39 PM, Jimurray said:

You have done an excellent job parsing the MLB rule and now your homework is to parse the NFHS and NCAA rules

Thank you for the compliment.   Here's my take on NFHS.

h. is touched by a live ball securely held by a fielder or is touched by a fielder’s glove or hand with the live ball held therein, while the runner is not touching his base. 

i. does not retouch his base before a fielder tags him out or holds the ball while touching such base after any situation (8-2-1, 2-3 and 4). or

j. fails to reach the next base before a fielder either tags the runner out or holds the ball while touching such base, after runner has been forced from the base he occupied because the batter became a runner (with ball in play) when other runners were on first base, or on first and second, or on first, second and third

It seems to delineate between tagging the runner (tie goes to runner) and tagging the base (tie goes to defense) - whether it's a force or an appeal.   Because of the language in i and j, which turns out to be redundant and circular (ie. the runner is out if he doesn't reach the base before he is tagged out, which must occur before he reaches the base), even on a force/appeal play, it seems if you tag the runner instead of the base the tie would go to the runner....based on Rule one, Section 24....following that even article one for a force out contains the language for a tag out.

ART. 1 . . . A force-out is a putout during which a runner who is being forced to advance is tagged out, or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing

ART. 4 . . . A tag out is the put out of a runner, including the batter-runner, who is not in contact with his base when touched with a live ball, or with the glove or hand when the live ball is held securely therein by a fielder. 

.

On a side note, I think Article Four alludes to the most compelling case for "tie goes to the runner", dismissing any technical/semantic discussion, in how anyone may have struggled to word a rule for any given scenario...the words "not in contact with his base".  The premise and spirit of the game, in its purest form, has always held that if you're touching the (proper) base you are safe  - and the opposite side of the coin, if you are tagged while not touching the base you are out. 

So, if you accept the notion that there can be ties, then in a scenario where the runner and the ball/tag do arrive at the exact same time, the runner must be safe because he is in contact with the base.  In following the spirit of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for the shoutout @Jimurray

I'll also throw out that the official rules of softball also contains the same language:

 

b. When, while the ball is in play and he is not in contact with a base, he is legally touched with the ball in the hand(s) of a fielder.

As well, for force plays, the runner is out if the runner or base is tagged BEFORE the runner reaches the base.

Both imply that the tie goes to the runner.

 

I raise this, because both NFHS and Official Rules of Softball (International rules) derived their rules from the OBR (and then NFHS softball derived their rules from ORS) - in many ways you can see where it looks like a giant cut and paste, and then tweaked accordingly...because of that, I speculate that OBR once contained the same specific language "not in contact with a base"...namely because I see two possibilities:

1. ORS and NFHS, though both derived from OBR, both independently modified their language to include "not in contact with a base"

2. ORS and NFHS derived their language from the same source, and then the source independently changed their language.

I find the second option more realistic.  And, as I've said many times, it is what adheres to the true spirit of the game, as it has always been.  If you're touching your base, you're safe...if you're not, you're not.  That is the only thing that matters.

 

I suspect that along the lines someone felt OBR/MLB needed clarification, and they simply outsmarted themselves.

 

Now, to the practical side...no one in their right mind (that does not preclude that all coaches, players or umpires are in their right mind) would/should argue "it was a tie".  It's ridiculous to argue with any certainty any banger play decided by less than 1/4 of a step in real time.  I have no problem with an umpire determining, in their head, close enough that's a "tie", but if a coach comes out to say "blue, that was a tie"...rather than "blue, he beat the throw", he is a moron, so it should always and ever be a moot point.   If the umpire, in real time, sees the runner and ball arriving at the same time, I'd like to see him calling the runner safe.  And that's where any discussion should end.  However, if he were to rule the runner out, a coach that comes out to argue "it was a tie" needs to be bitch slapped...if the coach says the runner beat the ball, then you say "nope" and end of discussion.  On the other side of the coin, if you rule it a tie (in your head) and call the runner safe, the coach who claims the ball beat the runner is simply shot down with a simple "that's not how I have it"....no need to open any cans of worms regarding ties.

 

Not to mention that a true tie can only happen at the molecular level...and I think I've also made this argument here...if you want to now start talking at the molecular level then it needs to be understood that no two objects EVER touch at the molecular level...so, no tag could ever occur, and no base could ever be touched....what a fun game that would be.  (this would lead to one of two scenarios...an infinite top of the first inning...or, where verbal appeals are allowed, a perfect game that never ends)

 

The "tie goes to the runner" issue could become a problem when replay review technology starts utilizing million frame per second slow motion, with 10000x zoom, and 64k super ultra high def.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

You don’t really think that we don’t know that, do you? The OBR book was reformatted and recodified in 2015—the change to the rule we were referring to was in 2010 and I copied it directly from a list of changes in that edition. The 2015 edition of the OBR included a cross-reference table at the end of the book showing each new number and its corresponding number from the 2014 edition. Did I make a mistake in expecting that you and everyone else would realize that?

The article I linked to was written in 2012 so, of course, it used the rule numbering format that was current at the time. Or do you really want me to edit quoted old text even though I was not the author?


No, I don’t expect you to edit the text, but I would hope you would follow the citation with a note about the correction or current status for those who don’t know.

I’m sure many in here are going to disagree with me ...

Therein is my frustration, and one that you are not usually prone to @Senor Azul (my use of “you” from here out is not you SA, but the “generic” you in this online community, including myself at times) ... this website is a resource for UMPIRES ... not just PROFESSIONAL UMPIRES.  Not just MINOR LEAGUE UMPIRES.  The people most likely to be coming here to learn are apt to be younger, newer umpires working LL, NFHS, PONY, etc. who are wanting to get better.

Posting things like “That is the rule” and citing out of date references for OBR, while technically correct, are more damaging than helpful to the bulk of the umpiring community who is coming here to learn.  I would venture to say that most of the “newbies” here are not going to dig up the book and look it up, although that is exactly what they should be doing.  Too many umpires think reciting things they were told and vomiting out unoriginal quotes on rules make them better umpires, when they really need to be opening up the book, reading the rules, and developing critical thinking skills.

Yes, I know you know it ... now please help others actually learn rather than castigating them, spewing rhetoric at them, and patting yourself on the back for being so clever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Ok, I see how you are getting there and how they worked around it ... had to clear my mind and use the Umpire Force ... ;)

Before = out

Everything else = not out = safe

 

I concede OBR.  I still don’t think it is a good idea to blindly post “It’s the rule” when you are on a site whose purpose is to educate umpires, most of whom will spend their career working NFHS and below and maybe, if they are lucky, NCAA.

Most of the youth leagues use OBR as their base rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 10/6/2019 at 11:51 AM, Rich Ives said:

A tie does go to the runner. To get an out the base must be tagged BEFORE the runner touches it.  If it's a tie it wasn't before.

I've been umpiring since 1974 and I've never had a tie on a force play.  Never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hey!  Just because the first base coach or manager yells at you "Tie goes to the runner!" , so what evidence do they have that its a tie in the first place? :-)

Mike

Las Vegas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'll also repeat something else I've said before...if the Olympic games can have ties, to two or three decimal places, in races ranging from 50 m to 50 km, baseball can have a tie over 90 feet...it won't kill anyone.

The last thing I ever want to see is the 100 m sprint gold medal decided by the 23rd decimal place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'll also repeat something else I've said before...if the Olympic games can have ties, to two or three decimal places, in races ranging from 50 m to 50 km, baseball can have a tie over 90 feet...it won't kill anyone.

The last thing I ever want to see is the 100 m sprint gold medal decided by the 23rd decimal place.

I remember a story from an Olympic skiing event, maybe from the last winter Olympics. They use (I think) 2 decimal places, so if you match there, it's a tie. However, the official timing uses three decimal places, but only two places are shown to the public. There was a tie for (I think) gold, so they were both awarded the medal. The commentators were saying only a handful of people know who actually had the faster time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And they may still not.   Thousandths of a second maybe within the error range of the timing devices.   The lower number in that place may just be randomness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...