"Tie goes to the runner" is a playground phrase used when there is no umpire to decide the call. It was used by kids to decide perceived ties in much the same way as "shooting odds or evens" or just deciding based on force of personality.
The rules seem to conflict on the batter/runner having to be conclusively safe or else he is considered out versus the forced runner having to be put out or he is safe because the forced runner has acquired rights as a base-runner. He's been declared safe previously, a batter/runner has not.
I believe that is the reason for the apparent discrepancy between the definition of what is an "out" as applied to the two types of runners.
When I umpire, there are no ties. And happily no appeals on arguments heard on safe/out decision. :)
The culture of the game generally dictates that when considering a batter-runner who hits a grounder that is going to be what umpires calla "whacker" or close play (tie?) at first base. Most umpires will "bang him out", employing the old umpires joke (I hope) "When in doubt, bang him out". Another favorite bromide from the blue school is "Call them out, you get home faster."
Most of the time, the culture of the game, or what's expected by the participants, is on your side if you bang the batter-runner out at first on the proverbial tie. The whole dugout is imploring the runner "Beat it out, beat it out" as he's hustling down the line. This indicates they understand that a tie is going to be an out. I caused a dugout full of freshman to pause and think once when I posed that question to them after I rung up a batter and they gave me the "Oh come on blue, doesn't the tie go to the runner?" I just aksed them, then why were you telling him he needed to "beat the throw".
They "got it" after that.
By the same token, if a base-runner is on and there is a close play on a pickoff play or play at a subsequent base, I think it's fair that any "doubt" that may be involved in the decision goes to the base-runner. The defense has to remove him from the base beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So initial batter-runner has to acquire the right to a base and then he acquires higher status and the defense has to beat the runner to the base via force-out or tag.
The game works out better that way. It's fair, understandable, reasonable and defensible.
Of course, a good umpire will never admit to doubt or any form of "mental coin-flipping". The good ones will say "I may be wrong, but I'm always certain."
According to at least one of the professional umpire schools, the rules makers distinctly and purposefully did not use the word "tie" in the rulebook as they neither anticipated one, nor wished to encourage one. Rather, the intended implication of "6.05j. Runner or base has to be tagged before the runner touches first base for an out" is not that a tie exists, but that the reverse is also true, that when a runner touches first prior to be tagged, he is safe."
Those who have researched the rulebook and intent say that nothing in the book is meant to convey the existence of a tie. Old myths, especially the one about tie goes to the runner, die hard.
---
Tie goes to the runner and other baseball rules myths:
I recently have been reading journalist Bruce Weber's book, As They See 'Em: A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires. It is a fun read, providing great insight into the history, politics, and nuances of umpiring. I was interested in it for the insight it may shed on the much-despised judge-umpire analogy, this time from the umpire perspective. I may write a book review on it, focusing on the analogy and what it teaches us about that.----------
For now, I wanted to mention one thing that caught my eye. As far back as Little League, we learned (and constantly repeated whenever there was a close play) that "the tie goes to the runner." Apparently, this is false. Rule 7.01 states that "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out." Thus, the runner is out unless he beats the throw and/or tag to the base.
This is an interesting example of default rules and burdens of persuasion in action. The default is that the runner is out unless he affirmatively beats the throw. In a sense, the runner has the burden of proof that he is safe and his failure to meet his burden (his failure to beat the throw) means he is out. Weber does not get into the origins or rationale for the rule or the origins of the myth. But it is one more thing that umpires do that we do not understand.
The Relevant Rules:
The rule you state, 6.05(j), states the tag must beat the
BATTER however, since according to rule 6.09(a,b) the batter
becomes a runner when they hit a fair ball or when a third
strike is not caught, 6.05(j) does not apply.
7.08(e) states that a RUNNER is out if he fails to reach
the next base before the tag, thus a tie is an out.
7.08(d) states that a RUNNER is out if he fails to retouch
his base after a ball is legally caught before the tag, thus
a tie is an out.
7.08(c) states that a RUNNER is out if he is tagged by a
live ball while off HIS base. His base refers to a base that
the runner has already earned provided he is not required to
give it up due to a force. So, the only time the tie goes to
the runner is when they are diving back to their base and a
tag is required.
The Enforcement Options - Application of the Rules:
So, what about other situations? Two basic rules are 7.01 and 7.08(c). They say that a runner becomes entitled to a base -- is safe -- when he touches a base before he is out, and that a runner is out if he is tagged when off his base.
---
Bruce reads 7.01 to mean that a runner is entitled to a
base -- and, therefore, only safe -- when he touches the base
before the act of putting the runner out. This would mean
that ties *never* go to runners -- not even at first.
However, you could read 7.01 to merely beg the question of
when a runner is out. After all, it doesn't say that you
are only safe if you touch the base before the *tag* -- it
says that you're safe if you touch the base before you're
*out*.
---
So, when is a runner out? One answer is, when he's tagged
while "off his base." If this is the rule -- 7.08(c) -- by
which a runner is out -- and I think it covers all
situations where a tag of the runner (as opposed to the
base) is required -- then the tie goes
to that runner, because if the runner is touching the base
when he is tagged, he is not "off his base" at the time of
the tag -- he's touching it. Furhter, he has touched it
before being out, satisfying 7.01, because there is no
other > rule by which this runner is out other than the
personal-tag-while-off-a-base rule.
It's not perfect, but I think the rules say that ties
generally go to runners unless it's a force-out at 2nd,
3rd, or Home, in which case, ties go to fielders. This would
mean a world in which the benefit of the doubt goes to
offensive players when running to first, returning to bases,
stealing bases, or trying for extra bases, but to defensive players
when going for force-outs. I like it.
The case of Runner v. Tag involves some statutory interpretation. Yes, it is clear that there are ties -- situations where it is beyond the ability of any observer (or, even, a hypothetical machine) to discern which came first.
It is equally clear that the rules do not contemplate ties or address them directly. But, we do have rules, and they say what they say even if they don't directly address ties. If there were a rule -- totally clear and not undermined by any other rule -- that said that a runner is
safe only when he touches the base before the tag, we would all probably agree that, under the rules, the tie does not in fact go to the runner but to the fielder.
These rules are a bit more murky than that, but they do seem to say that in some situations.
What we know for sure: There is a batter rule (6) and a runner rule (7).
There is overlap.
Batters become runners, or "batter-runners," until they are put out or the play in
which they became a runner otherwise ends. So, for the batter-runner, there are two rules -- 6 and 7, and both apply.
---
Rule 6.05(j) says a batter is out if, after a third strike or a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. This would suggest that ties go to runners if they are batter-runners and the play is at first, but we have to consider other rules that could also apply.
Rule 7.08(e) says something different for runners who are forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner:
That is, they are out unless they reach the next base before the tag. This suggests that the tie goes to the fielder on a force-out at 2nd, 3rd, or Home. (I don't think this rule applies to batter-runners, but I'm not a hundred percent positive.)
---
From the Hardball Times:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/inside-the-rules-tie-goes-to-the-runner/
Thursday, November 04, 2010---
Inside the rules: tie goes to the runner
Posted by David Wade
Many baseball fans, and possibly some players and coaches, believe that a baserunner who reaches first at the same time as the ball is safe. Those under that impression often will declare, magisterially and emphatically, that the 'tie goes to the runner.' However, that exact phrase doesn't actually exist anywhere in baseball's rules. While that may surprise some, it is also true that there is no mention of baserunner ties in major league baseball's rulebook in any manner. The question then is, do we take silence on the issue to mean we must reject the oft-cited assumption completely?
Here are the relevant rules in the MLB rulebook:
Rule 6.05 (j) A batter is out when, after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base.
Rule 7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.
Rule 7.08 (e) Any runner is out when he or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base....
Explicit in those rules are two things. First, a runner is out if he is forced or tagged before reaching the base. The rulebook clearly shows that with the first and third examples. Conversely (and just as clearly shown) a runner is safe if reaching a base before being forced or tagged under rule 7.1. These rules are two sides of the same coin, for either the runner must beat the defense to the bag to be safe or the defender must beat the runner to the bag to record an out.
Missing in those rules are instructions for dealing with runner and defender reaching the bag simultaneously. The 'tie' lacks explanation. Some feel that no mention makes the tie benefiting the runner a myth, on par with misguided thinking that the hands are part of the bat, for example. However, closer inspection may show the reason why the 'tie goes to the runner' is such an age-old adage.
With no specific instruction on how to rule a tie, the umpire following only what is explicitly written in the code must assume ties simply do not exist, and many do just that. A common refrain among umpires seems to be that there are no ties on plays at bases. That interpretation means umpires are following the lead of Protestant Reformers and studying their rules sola scriptura. Subsequently, they must judge according only to the passages referenced above.
Unfortunately, such strict acceptance means calling a runner out or safe on an actual tie based on one instance of the rule while ignoring the other. To get around that, they argue that the ball either beats the runner or it doesn't, and the runner is subsequently either out or safe. While the former is questionable, the latter is correct. No matter how debatable a call may be in baseball, safe and out are still the only two choices.
One problem with the only-ball-or-runner-first answer is that a provision should be made for a tie and simply favor either the runner or the defender. All calls would still be mutually exclusive, depending only on which side benefited from some clear and final decision on ties. But, this hypothetical scenario would require those in authority to give weight to one instance in the rulebook over the other and make a slight modification in the wording in all references to outs at bases. That has not happened over the course of 100 years and seems unlikely in the future.
After eliminating that far-fetched solution, another problem still remains with umpires saying that the ball either beats the runner or it doesn't. That, of course, is an umpire's claim that a ball cannot reach a defender precisely when the runner touches the bag. That notion is much more problematic and real. We can look at horse racing for convincing photographic evidence that it is possible for two or more horses to reach the finish line at the same time, even after a race lasting two minutes or more. How, then, could it not be possible for a runner and defender to reach first base after a play lasting all of four seconds? It is possible, and any umpire that claims it is not has chosen to speak only where the scripture speaks.
Another option for umpires, which is to study the rules for intent and allow an implicit interpretation regarding ties, has its own problems as well. For, if an umpire admits it is possible for ball and runner to meet a base at the same time, they face a new dilemma. Is a tie an out or is it safe? Some umpires could put the onus on the defender to beat the runner and declare the runner safe if he reaches the base at the same time. They could reference a rule for such a call. Others, taking the opposite stance, could argue that they follow a rule as well, just a different one. Here are examples of such stances, with predictably conflicting results.
In this Q and A on MLB.com, major league crew chief Tim McClelland took the questions. When a reader asked about the 'tie going to runner,' he said that wording is not found and that "...the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out." In this example, McClelland seems to invoke rule 7.1 while ignoring the other two, so he calls the runner out.
Tim McClelland's full comments:
I am an umpire for Little League. The coach told me that ties go to the runner. I said the batter has to beat the throw to first because there are no such thing as ties. Who is right?
-- L.M.F.
McClelland: That is exactly right. There are no ties and there is no rule that says the tie goes to the runner. But the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out. So you have to make the decision. That's why umpires are paid the money they are, to make the decision on if he did or if he didn't. The only thing you can do is go by whether or not he beat the ball. If he did, then he is safe.
Here is another quote regarding the same question, in a Q and A with former major league umpire and current umpire academy owner Jim Evans. Evans' answer differs from McClelland's. Evans says the rulebook states, "...that a runner is out IF the defensive team tags him or his base BEFORE he reaches it. The implication is if the tag doesn't occur first (not at the same time or after), the runner would be safe." Here this umpire prefers rules 6.05 (j) and 7.08 (e) over McClelland's selection, so he calls the runner safe.
Proponents of the conflicting methods of interpretation shown above deal with two rules, 7.1 and 7.08 (e) in particular, that cannot both be true and cannot both be false. We are left with a logical contradiction. Unfortunately, we're also left no closer to a concrete solution.
In looking through baseball's rules, nothing says that a 'tie goes to the runner'. Feel free to ridicule any who claim that wording is in the book. However, calling such an idea a myth may be pushing it, since an umpire may call a runner safe on a tie.
Umpires will call a runner both safe and out on ties at different times. Some will do so for different reasons, either by 'missing' the call because they ruled that the ball or runner did get there first, or by choosing one particular rule over another from among the same set of rules. The umpire must make a judgment call on such plays, as he often does in the game of baseball. Even though there surely can be a tie at a base, a call either way must be made by men with differing opinions of what the correct call is.
That sounds a lot like the methodology in interpreting the strike zone.
From the Chicago Tribune:
As he saw it -- a conversation about life behind the umpire's mask
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/03/as-he-saw-it-a-conversation-about-life-behind-the-umpires-mask.html
My college friend Bruce Weber, a reporter for the New York Times, is the author of "As They See `Em -- A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires" being published this month by Scribner. The following is a lightly edited transcript of our recent e-mail exchange:
EZ: So they're not necessarily the guys who started out at 14 umping T-ball games in the summer and kept it up every summer through high school and college. Hmm. Now, I'm assuming that after umpire school they all know the basics well enough -- tie does NOT go to the runner, I never knew that, though I would argue with great passion that it should -- so what is it that separates good umps from bad umps?
BW: If you're suggesting there is such a thing as an umpire nerd, yes, there is.
As for what distinguishes a good ump from a bad ump, I'd say it's akin to the difference between a good military officer and a not so good one. Some people have the ability to project confidence and authority and some don't; some people are able to give others confidence in their judgment and to reassure them that their livelihood is in good hands and some aren't.
By the way, you can argue all you want that a tie should go to the runner, but it's like arguing that a hitter should get four strikes.
Neither is the rule. Rule 7.01:"A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out." BEFORE he is out, not at the same time.
EZ: One last thing. The rulebook may say otherwise, but don't you, in your heart, say, as we have all said since childhood, that a tie should go to the runner? How can you possibly defend the sacrilegious idea that a tie goes to the defense?
BW: I'd rather say there's no such thing as a tie. Either the ball beats the runner to the base or the runner beats the ball.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment