Banger at first

[ousafe]

And here we go, again. I like this thoughtful blog post: http://www.umpirebible.com/ubBlog/archives/359

Bermuda triangle indeed.

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

But if you safe every “tie”, you’re the first umpire I’ve ever met that has that philosophy.

Rich is not an umpire.

[maven]

2 hours ago, SH0102 said:

Just to clarify, you’re saying an MLB umpire doesn’t know what he is talking about?

He isn't a MLB umpire, and hasn't been since his retirement after the 2014 season.

Also, we don't know when he said this.

[Velho]

Doing my annual LL manual read through and came across this (made low res so I could post it. Can't find it online). It's in the app, Rule 2.00 between CATCH and CATCHER).

 

 

[Jimurray]

10 hours ago, Velho said:

Doing my annual LL manual read through and came across this (made low res so I could post it. Can't find it online). It's in the app, Rule 2.00 between CATCH and CATCHER).

 

So your commentor is saying a runner can be tagged for an out while touching a base? His cite, 6.05(i) actually says the opposite. However LL never changed 7.08(e) when MLB did in 2010 so a forced runner in LL can be tagged for an out while touching a base.

The old 7.08(e): "failing to reach the next base before a fielder tags said runner or the base after that runner has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. ”

The changed 7.08(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."

MLB made that change in 2010 to align that a tie, semantically, goes to the runner at any base. They could have changed 6.05(i) to require the runner to beat the ball as 7.08(e) previously did but they choose not to.

[Velho]

13 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So your commentor is saying a runner can be tagged for an out while touching a base?

"My commentator" Ha, no.  I'm not expressing the message, I'm just relaying it.

I think this argument is picking fly poop from pepper but the above is in the LL rulebook. Doesn't get much more authoritative than that (for that rule set).

For those adamant that BR to 1st isn't a force play, 7.08(e) should be irrelevant.

 

[johnnyg08]

I'm just glad you didn't get talked into "getting help" on a pulled foot play from A. 

 

[Velho]

12 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'm just glad you didn't get talked into "getting help" on a pulled foot play from A. 

Digression to funny anecdote from yesterday: did a 10U plate with ParentUmp BU in 3rd game ever. No one one, banger at 1st. BU calls out. It was one of those that "felt" like BR was safe but he hit middle of the bag instead of front so it wasn't that simple. 1B coach was the manager and said "I want to appeal, I want to appeal" (not screeching but not stoic either). It being a new BU I walk the rest of the way up there (I don't want him getting the chance to talk the BU into a change*) and nicely ask / tell "what do you want to appeal? If you think he was safe but he was out, that's judgement. You can't appeal that." Get a mostly blank stare back. "If you thought he pulled his foot, you can ask him BU to get help". "Ok, I want to do that". I gently laughed and said "He didn't. No." And we went back to playing.

2nd digression: My son's HS game later yesterday: 2 man crew. R2 only, picked off into a rundown, F6 to F5 and R2 evades, BU calls him safe into 3B. DC goes out to BU contending B2 went out of the baseline. BU confers with HPU (who had never left point of plate) and then calls R2 out. 😳Lengthy discussion between BU, HPU and OC follows as would be expected.

 

 

 

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Digression to funny anecdote from yesterday: did a 10U plate with ParentUmp BU in 3rd game ever. No one one, banger at 1st. BU calls out. It was one of those that "felt" like BR was safe but he hit middle of the bag instead of front so it wasn't that simple. 1B coach was the manager and said "I want to appeal, I want to appeal" (not screeching but not stoic either). It being a new BU I walk the rest of the way up there (I don't want him getting the chance to talk the BU into a change*) and nicely ask / tell "what do you want to appeal? If you think he was safe but he was out, that's judgement. You can't appeal that." Get a mostly blank stare back. "If you thought he pulled his foot, you can ask him BU to get help". "Ok, I want to do that". I gently laughed and said "He didn't. No." And we went back to playing.

2nd digression: My son's HS game later yesterday: 2 man crew. R2 only, picked off into a rundown, F6 to F5 and R2 evades, BU calls him safe into 3B. DC goes out to BU contending B2 went out of the baseline. BU confers with HPU (who had never left point of plate) and then calls R2 out. 😳Lengthy discussion between BU, HPU and OC follows as would be expected.

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that judgment is anything that can be observed. Ball vs. runner is judgment. Foot on the bag is judgment. We can get help on some types of judgment and not others. We can always get help on rules interpretations.

[beerguy55]

I've done my own manifestos on this, even on this board - I'll keep it short.   There are two arguments - one about the rule, and the other about the definition of a "tie".

Argument One - the Rule

In light of all the apparent conflicts and semantical anomalies, I go to the spirit of the rule.  I suspect at some point the rule book read more closely with the spirit than it does now...I think some of the authors over the years have outsmarted themselves trying to close loopholes.

IMNSHO, the spirit of the rule is, and always has been, if the runner (or base) is tagged when he's off the base he's out.    I think FED might even use language like this. 

That, to me, is the most simple and pure definition and explanation - if you're not touching the base, you're out...ergo, if the runner is on the base when he's tagged, he's safe...meaning, ahem, a "tie" goes to the runner, because he's touching the base.

Argument Two - what's a "tie"?

That is a whole mathematical and metaphysical discussion of whether it's even possible, and to how many decimal points do you want to measure the timing/distance to achieve the standard...

If you go to too many decimal points in your measure of distance to prove there's no tie you soon get to the molecular level...which, as anyone who graduated high school should know, means that the runner NEVER actually touches the base, and, more importantly, the fielder NEVER tags the runner or base.  So have fun with that.  

So, I go to the Olympics for my inspiration.   If every race from the 50m freestyle swim to the 50km cross country ski can be measured to two or three decimal places, and when tied to that level they are both awarded a gold medal (they don't go to a fourth decimal to find an extra 1/10000th of a second), then, doshgarn it, we can have a tie in baseball over 90 feet - in the spirit of fair play, good sportsmanship, and the "gentleman's approach" of the original rules.

Conclusion

Give the runner the base - get your strikes and outs somewhere else.   It's hard enough to get on base.

 

Having said all that, when the play is this close there's nfw a  coach should be saying anything, and nfw you should consider even looking at your partner  for help.

[johnnyg08]

On 3/16/2022 at 5:34 PM, beerguy55 said:

I've done my own manifestos on this, even on this board - I'll keep it short.   There are two arguments - one about the rule, and the other about the definition of a "tie".

Argument One - the Rule

In light of all the apparent conflicts and semantical anomalies, I go to the spirit of the rule.  I suspect at some point the rule book read more closely with the spirit than it does now...I think some of the authors over the years have outsmarted themselves trying to close loopholes.

IMNSHO, the spirit of the rule is, and always has been, if the runner (or base) is tagged when he's off the base he's out.    I think FED might even use language like this. 

That, to me, is the most simple and pure definition and explanation - if you're not touching the base, you're out...ergo, if the runner is on the base when he's tagged, he's safe...meaning, ahem, a "tie" goes to the runner, because he's touching the base.

Argument Two - what's a "tie"?

That is a whole mathematical and metaphysical discussion of whether it's even possible, and to how many decimal points do you want to measure the timing/distance to achieve the standard...

If you go to too many decimal points in your measure of distance to prove there's no tie you soon get to the molecular level...which, as anyone who graduated high school should know, means that the runner NEVER actually touches the base, and, more importantly, the fielder NEVER tags the runner or base.  So have fun with that.  

So, I go to the Olympics for my inspiration.   If every race from the 50m freestyle swim to the 50km cross country ski can be measured to two or three decimal places, and when tied to that level they are both awarded a gold medal (they don't go to a fourth decimal to find an extra 1/10000th of a second), then, doshgarn it, we can have a tie in baseball over 90 feet - in the spirit of fair play, good sportsmanship, and the "gentleman's approach" of the original rules.

Conclusion

Give the runner the base - get your strikes and outs somewhere else.   It's hard enough to get on base.

 

Having said all that, when the play is this close there's nfw a  coach should be saying anything, and nfw you should consider even looking at your partner  for help.

I enjoyed reading that. Thanks!