Comments on: “Tie goes to the runner, dude!” Or . . . maybe not

By: mattjg

mattjg — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:01:59 +0000

You know in middle school, when you made fun of your crush so people didn’t know you like her/him? It’s the same with Craig and Phillies fans. He mocks us because he knows that deep down inside he wants to be with us (ew, not that way you perv). Give it a couple more years and Craig will be a full fledged Phillies fan.

By: soccermom17540

soccermom17540 — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:13:57 +0000

“but I’m pretty sure it was some of you Phillies people, because I recall the argument being shrill and emotional.”

SERIOUSLY?

Of course you did want a reaction like mine. But REALLY?!?

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:15:56 +0000

I’m not going to go look at “rules” because they are BS when it comes to what’s safe, and what isn’t. Basically the Ump gets to call it as he sees it. And as I see it…..
90% of the time that it appears to me to be a tie, it’s called an out. I don’t agree with it because in my opinion it’s the defense’s job to prevent baserunners. If they can’t get the ball to the bag faster than the runner gets there, the runner really should be safe. It’s one of the toughest calls imo to be on first base. It’s not easy to watch a bag on the ground and a glove in the air at the same time, so I just accept the fact that it’s harder to get on base than it is to get an out, even in the event of a tie.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:11:26 +0000

Words mean things. The rules clearly state that the ball must beat the runner, not that the runner must beat the ball. If the ball and runner arrive at the same time, then the ball did not beat the runner and the runner is safe. It is disturbing that umpire schools teach the rules so poorly….it isn’t like the sentence construction was circumlocutious, it was pretty straight forward.

By: Walk

Walk — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 07:51:56 +0000

Those rules made me laugh a bit thinking of the implications. By default in a situation that is a tie the call can never be wrong no matter if the runner is called safe or out. The rules prior to the change seemed to imply to me the umpire was free to chose whichever call he wanted and be correct either way. After the rule change the call seems pretty straight forward and ball has to beat the runner to get the out call. I am very surprised the wording was changed in this instance, the umps had the best of both worlds under the original wording.

By: carstensm

carstensm — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 04:37:33 +0000

When I was an umpire I’d always say, “There are no ties.”

By: dsmaxsucks

dsmaxsucks — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 02:29:43 +0000

I thought Craig was a lawyer, but it appears if he went to law school it was in…. Philadelphia. (I kid).

This is first year law school stuff, and I thought it was why lawyers got baseball blogs. I don’t remember if this resembles an LSAT question or a law school question (since it has practical import it is not actually like either) but the rules of construction clearly establish that the tie goes to the runner.

Rule 6.05(3) The runner is out if he or first base is tagged BEFORE he touches first base.

(simultaneous does not equal before, much like midnight does not equal before midnight. Before means before, not simply “Not after”).

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

As a simultaneous touching does not equal an out, the runner acquired the bag before he was out. One rule defines out, and the other involves the right to a base.

These two rules are not inconsistent, and they mean tie goes to the runner.

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:20:36 +0000

It was ME who started the argument…what else is new. I said that Uribe should not have been getting such great accolades for a play where the runner was safe at first (because it was a tie) and then he hit a stupid sac fly and was cheered like the hero of the World Series. Of course, 2 nights later he hit a bomb at CBP to win the NLCS just to show me that he is the man.

I always heard the tie goes to the runner, so just figured it was a rule. Learned something new that day.

By: mattjg

mattjg — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:58:25 +0000

By listing ways in which a runner can be out on a ball in play (i.e. runner tagged before he reaches first base or first base tagged before runner reaches first base) the rule implies that if neither of these events occur, then the runner is not out. The most reasonable reading of the rule then is “If, and only if, the ball beats the runner (or the runner is tagged) before the runner reaches first, then the runner is out.” Or

(1) If, and only if, A, then B.
(2) If not-A, then not-B.

In this situation (2) does follow from (1).

By: iammaxa

iammaxa — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:04:50 +0000

(1) If A, then B.
(2) If not-A, then not-B.

(2) does not follow from (1). You don’t need to have studied logic to know this. Take a concrete example:

(3) If X is a square, then X is a rhombus.
(4) If X not a square, then X not a rhombus.

(4) clearly does not follow from (3). In fact, in this example (3) is true while (4) is false (to convince yourself that (4) is false, plug in a rhombus for X).

By: phillysoulfan

phillysoulfan — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:45:30 +0000

It’s really a matter of thinking how an MLB Umpire is seeing the same thing you are. You see it one way, they see it another.

By: phillysoulfan

phillysoulfan — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:38:24 +0000

Thanks Umpire, you beat me to it. I read Bruce Weber’s “As They See ‘Em: A Fan’s Travels in the Land of Umpires”. This guy went through Umpire School and called a few minor league games and some major league grapefruit league games. He was taught exactly that. 1) There is no such thing as a tie. and 2) In the odd event that SHOULD the runner tag the base as the ball hits the mitt, the runner has to beat the throw.

It’s a fascinating read if you’re a fan of baseball. I highly recommend it.

By: Gobias Industries

Gobias Industries — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:37:39 +0000

Good call, UH.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/21/who-are-the-heftiest-shortstops-of-all-time/?related=1

I think everyone forgot to take their Ritalin that day because they got so distracted by the tie-goes-to-the-runner debate that they couldn’t focus on who the porkiest SS is.

By: Richard In Big D

Richard In Big D — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:02:17 +0000

This kind of controversy is what happens when something other than plain English is used. On close examination, it it quite clear that the ball must be to the base first in order for the runner to not be safe, and therefore the tie would go to the runner. That a working major league umpire would read that so incorrectly explains so much about the mayhem that we see in slow motion replays. Maybe the commissioner could make a ruling and instruct his umpires accordingly (when we GET a commissioner, that is…).

By: umpire6

umpire6 — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:18:53 +0000

I don’t see a citation in that previous comment. Rule 6.05(j): A batter is out after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base.

I can see how that can be interpreted as tie goes to the runner. However, I’ve been through professional umpire school at the Evans academy and I can tell you we were taught that a runner has to beat the throw. To drive that point home, we went through drills where we called plays at first blindfolded, because it’s easier to hear the difference between a ball entering a mitt and a foot touching a base than it is to actually see it when a play is close.

There’s over 180 errors and inaccuracies in the MLB rulebook. It’s a document that has only slightly been changed since the early 1900′s. I think most high school rulebooks use the language, “a runner has to beat the throw.” Regardless of how it’s written, that’s certainly how the rule is indoctrinated.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:13:47 +0000

Even if the textbook rules did say that the tie does not go to the runner, is there any reason to think that the umpires are going to change the actual on-the-field rules? And is there any reason to change the on-the-field rules to match the textbook rules, really? Is there anything WRONG with the tie going to the offense instead of the defense? Seems like a non-issue to me.

By: Utley's Hair

Utley's Hair — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:13:38 +0000

A.) Suck it, Craig. (I kid!! Or do I?)
B.) I think the post wasn’t on a live chat (as if there were a large number of them, anyway) had something to do with—oddly enough—shortstop girth.

By: mattjg

mattjg — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:53:48 +0000

It looks like Wade botched the analysis, but the commenters nailed it. Two rules say, essentially, that the runner is out if the ball beats the runner. This implies that if the ball does not beat the runner (i.e. the runner beats the ball OR THERE IS A TIE) then the runner is safe. The other rule (which, according to some commenters used to to be contradictory but was changed in 2008) says the runner has the right to a base if he touches it before he is OUT (not before the ball arrives). To find the definition of “out” we look to the other rules. Therefore, the final rule merely says that the runner has the right to a base if he touches it before the ball ARRIVES BEFORE HE DOES.

Therefore, under all the rules as currently written, a tie does go to the runner. I’m surprised that the HBT article missed what seems to me (and a number of commenters over there) fairly simple.