157 replies to this topic

[PatrickDougherty]

All instant replay reviews are examined by an umpire at the Replay Command Center in NYC, who has the final decision as to whether to uphold or overturn the initial call.... but I think your point is for the Command Center to call for the replays?

 

I don't see that as a current issue, as Managers are going out to the field on every close play... waiting to hear from their bench if they should challenge.

To me, the biggest current issue is game play.

Yeah, have the central office call for replays but give on-field umpires the power to call for them as well. Coaches wasting time until they get the thumbs up is dumb, players will always think that they're correct, and umpires will never say they didn't get a good enough angle to make the call. Think about how often the umpires get together on the field and overturn a call as it is. The most efficient way to get the right call is to have a centralized body call for the review and make a decision in, like, 30 seconds.

[Mackus]

In a virtual tie, the runner gets the benefit of the doubt. Some day, we will have robots deciding these things that are decided  by fractions of a millisecond. 

 

There are no ties.  A play that a fan interprets as a "virtual tie" is actually ruled by the umpire that the runner either beat the throw or he didn't.  Not tied and gets the benefit of the doubt.  There is no benefit of the doubt in baseball.

[Oriole85]

There are no ties.

Ok you can keep saying that, it doesn't change the fact the umpires aren't robots and if they can't decide they're going to give to the runner.

[Mackus]

Yeah, have the central office call for replays but give on-field umpires the power to call for them as well. Coaches wasting time until they get the thumbs up is dumb, players will always think that they're correct, and umpires will never say they didn't get a good enough angle to make the call. Think about how often the umpires get together on the field and overturn a call as it is. The most efficient way to get the right call is to have a centralized body call for the review and make a decision in, like, 30 seconds.

 

That doesn't work because then the central office has to be watching every play of every game, which would require a ton more than just the 8 extra umpires they hired to handle replays.

 

People at the game have to call for a replay.  You could do a 5th umpire in the booth, but then again you are hiring way more umpires than the current system.  The central office can't be the ones calling for replays unless you've got one dedicated person to watch every game, which isn't feasible unless you are hiring an extra 15-20 umpires instead of just 8.

[Mackus]

Ok you can keep saying that, it doesn't change the fact the umpires aren't robots and if they can't decide they're going to give to the runner.

 

The bolded is not true.  They always decide, which is the point.  They never say, "well, it was really close, probably a tie, so I gave it to the runner".  Umpires are taught to always make a determination of if the runner beat the throw/tag or not.

[Oriole85]

The bolded is not true.  They always decide, which is the point.  They never say, "well, it was really close, probably a tie, so I gave it to the runner".  Umpires are taught to always make a determination of if the runner beat the throw/tag or not.

That might be what they are taught, but their humans and if they truly can't make a determination, they'll give it to the runner.

[PatrickDougherty]

That doesn't work because then the central office has to be watching every play of every game, which would require a ton more than just the 8 extra umpires they hired to handle replays.

 

People at the game have to call for a replay.  You could do a 5th umpire in the booth, but then again you are hiring way more umpires than the current system.  The central office can't be the ones calling for replays unless you've got one dedicated person to watch every game, which isn't feasible unless you are hiring an extra 15-20 umpires instead of just 8.

Job creation! That doesn't really sound like "why it won't work," but rather "why it will cost more money to institute properly." The NHL seems to have no trouble with it. Plus this ensures that the challenged plays are actually questionable calls. As is, coaches can challenge plays that viewers at home can tell were not in doubt.

[Mackus]

That might be what they are taught, but their humans and if they truly can't make a determination, they'll give it to the runner.

 

No, they don't.  They always make a determination as to whether they think the runner beat the throw or not, I don't know why you can't accept that.

 

Inexperienced umpires from youth leagues and maybe as high as high school probably do things the way you're talking about, but anybody with decent training knows that you always have to decide what your call is, and then make it.  And MLB umpires all have incredible training, they know the right way to do things, and assuming a tie and making up your own rules on the spot is not the right way.

[Mackus]

Job creation! That doesn't really sound like "why it won't work," but rather "why it will cost more money to institute properly." The NHL seems to have no trouble with it. Plus this ensures that the challenged plays are actually questionable calls. As is, coaches can challenge plays that viewers at home can tell were not in doubt.

 

True, it'd just be more expensive not impossible to implement.

 

Managers only get one challenge, so they aren't going to challenge something that's obviously clear very often.

[Oriole85]

No, they don't.  They always make a determination as to whether they think the runner beat the throw or not, I don't know why you can't accept that.

 

Inexperienced umpires from youth leagues and maybe as high as high school probably do things the way you're talking about, but anybody with decent training knows that you always have to decide what your call is, and then make it.  And MLB umpires all have incredible training, they know the right way to do things, and assuming a tie and making up your own rules on the spot is not the right way.

They sometimes just don't know. If it's 50/50 and a virtual tie, they're going to rule in the runners favor. 

[Mackus]

They sometimes just don't know. If it's 50/50 and a virtual tie, they're going to rule in the runners favor. 

 

They often don't know for sure, but they still make a decision, and that decision is the call.  They don't assume it's a tie.

 

You're absolutely wrong if you think they are actually using the "tie goes to the runner" axiom.

[Mike in STL]

So by the rule book, the runner has to beat the ball to the base to be safe. On a tie, the umpire still has to say in his mind, "did the runner beat the ball" and make the call accordingly. So the way the rule book, and English language to me would be interpreted, that if there is a tie, technically, you didn't beat the ball to the bag, and thus, you're out. Right? 

 

That's not to say that there is no middle ground. A tie can occur, but the bottom line is did you get there first. 

 

Someone needs to alert everyone in the world that covers baseball and tell them there is no such thing. Where did "tie goes to the runner" come from then? Even Jim Palmer who has been around the game longer then most of us have been alive used the term yesterday. I'd like to think Jim Palmer knows the rules. He only played the game for 19 years.

 

Crazy

[DJ MC]

So by the rule book, the runner has to beat the ball to the base to be safe. On a tie, the umpire still has to say in his mind, "did the runner beat the ball" and make the call accordingly. So the way the rule book, and English language to me would be interpreted, that if there is a tie, technically, you didn't beat the ball to the bag, and thus, you're out. Right? 

 

That's not to say that there is no middle ground. A tie can occur, but the bottom line is did you get there first. 

 

Someone needs to alert everyone in the world that covers baseball and tell them there is no such thing. Where did "tie goes to the runner" come from then? Even Jim Palmer who has been around the game longer then most of us have been alive used the term yesterday. I'd like to think Jim Palmer knows the rules. He only played the game for 19 years.

 

Crazy

 

As far as I'm aware, it's the opposite: the runner doesn't have to beat the ball, the ball has to beat the runner.

 

"Tie goes to the runner" is just shorthand for that kind of situation, if technically incorrect.

[Mike in STL]

As far as I'm aware, it's the opposite: the runner doesn't have to beat the ball, the ball has to beat the runner.

 

"Tie goes to the runner" is just shorthand for that kind of situation, if technically incorrect.

 

Thats what I thought, but this here is from MLB Umpire Tim McClelland. Thanks Google. 

 

"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."

[PatrickDougherty]

Thats what I thought, but this here is from MLB Umpire Tim McClelland. Thanks Google. 

 

"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."

So basically, there aren't any ties because the umpire says there aren't any ties.

[Mike in STL]

So basically, there aren't any ties because the umpire says there aren't any ties.

Basically. I mean literally you can have a tie, but in a tie game you didnt beat the other team. In a tie at the bag you didnt beat the ball, which is what the rules apparently say you have to do to be ruled safe.

New rule. In the event of a tie you must chug a beer then there will be a do over.

[PatrickDougherty]

Basically. I mean literally you can have a tie, but in a tie game you didnt beat the other team. In a tie at the bag you didnt beat the ball, which is what the rules apparently say you have to do to be ruled safe.

New rule. In the event of a tie you must chug a beer then there will be a do over.

BREAKING: Major League Baseball institutes electron microscope video replay to determine tie calls at first base.

[Oriole85]

Basically the way I interpret this whole thing is if somehow/someway, that there is a tie even if it's technically impossible, the runner is safe. The umpire needs to be 50.01% sure to call the runner out -- this isn't a criminal trial, they don't need a preponderance of evidence.

 

I hope we can spend another 20 pages on this topic now.

[Oriole85]

BREAKING: Major League Baseball institutes electron microscope video replay to determine tie calls at first base.

I'm sure we'll get there someday.

[Mackus]

So basically, there aren't any ties because the umpire says there aren't any ties.

 

There aren't any ties because the rule book makes no mention of ties.

 

If you infer ties exist, and try to logically deduce what happens in the case of a tie, it gets a bit complicated, contradictory even.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/m...es/runner_7.jsp

 

Rule 7.08e states: Any runner is out when he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base

 

So you could argue that the runner is out if he reaches the base at the same time as the ball, because he failed to reach the base before the fielder tagged him or the base.

 

However, I've seen the same rule, on MLB's site, stated differently.  As: 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.

 

So then you could argue that the runner is safe if he reaches the base at the same time as the ball, because he was not tagged before reaching the next base, he was tagged at the same time as reaching the base.

 

There are more rules that deal with safe and out, and they get even more contradictory when you start allowing for ties.  The rulebook never says what to do in the case of a tie, because there are no ties.  The rulebook is very comprehensive.  There is a rule for what to do if a base is dislodged, what to do if a player throws his hat at a batter ball, what to do if a batted ball hits not one but two runners.  If ties existed on safe/out calls in baseball, they'd be mentioned in the rulebook.