baseball rules - ever checked for consitency?

[brad_d]

(ElvisL1ves beat me to it, but I’ll post anyway with the reference.) Major League Baseball Official Rules, Rule 9 - The Umpire:

9.01(c)

Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

9.04(c):

If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires, the umpire-in-chief shall call all the umpires into consultation, with no manager or player present. After consultation, the umpire-in-chief (unless another umpire may have been designated by the league president) shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made.

[not_alice]

@furt

I was not asking for your explantions to my absurd hypotheticals. I was

1. Pointing out that I, who do not have any engineering background, could in 5 minutes come up with a few ridiculous examples of things the rules do not account for.

Sure, anyone can do it.

but some professionals (not just engineers, but analysts, lawyers, architects, pretty much anyone whose professional training involves making sure systems are complete and consistent, can get to the heart of the matter - that it does not matter what species of bird or even why at all the ball doesn’t arrive, only what to do should the ball not arrive.

I don’t think people need professional training to think things through like this, bit not all without the training are able to do it. Some are. I only pointed to the professions as an example that such people exist, and they solve similar matters daily.

I also implied that MLB has the resources to hire them if it so chooses - I don’t know if the actual rules committee or its staff (if there is a staff) has the skills or not. But they have the resources to hire out such a study, that’s for sure!

By your responses, you seem to agree that at least a couple of my scenarios are not currently covered by the rule book. I submit that given time, any imaginative person could come up with a hundred such bizarre scenarios.

I grant you that submission.

But the rules need not contemplate every individual instance, only the category. that is how they are today. The rules about running out of the baseline for instance are sufficient without specifying each possible path a runner can take out of the baseline. You go out of the specified area, and the rules kick in. Where you go after that doesn’t matter. similarly, whether a plane or a bird hits a batted ball is no different than if it hits a part of a dome - only matters fair or foul (not fowl!)

2. I was requesting that since you are an engineering major, you submit some examples of the kinds of thinking done by “any computer programmer, software tester or software analyst (among other professions too)” but not the rest of us mopes. IOW, put up some examples of your asserted expertise.

I gave you the example of the software running this forum.

I don’t know what constitutes, a “mope”. I would and have said anyone can do this. I most certainly extend it to include doctors, good (IME) mechanics, pretty much anyone that has to make diagnoses with limited information, who has to identify patterns and gaps in both conceptual and real systems.

Nobody can account for all of them.

Of course they can if they try.

Baseball is not such a complex game by the rules It exists in a limited time and space. There is no reason that time and space can’t be internally consistent. It may already be - the question before us is, has anyone ever checked that it is or not?

[not_alice]

[quote=“brad_d, post:21, topic:495395”]

(ElvisL1ves beat me to it, but I’ll post anyway with the reference.) Major League Baseball Official Rules, Rule 9 - The Umpire:

9.01(c)

Doesn’t apply in the scenario presented form the other thread because it specifically IS covered in the rules.

9.04(c)

Doesn’t apply because the umpires need not differ. The play is clearly in the realm of the homeplate ump. The managers sure might bring different interpretations to the umps, even if the umps are united in their initial decsion, which is sure to infuriate one manager. Even if they switch the call (not unprecedented) then the other manager will wig out.

The umps would have no recourse because 9.01c wuld not apply, and 9.04c would only apply if the umps differ in their call (such as if a ball glanced off a foul pole or didn’t hit it at all).

[not_alice]

@ElvisL1ves

A team can appeal any application of the rules that they like, but when the game is over there is little opportunity for recourse. On very rare occasions, the Commissioner’s Office will rule the game resumed from the point of the dispute, but normally even successful appeals obtain nothing more than an apology.

Sure, but they can get more than an apology - they can persuade the rules committee to look at the case and see if the rules are consistent and complete. The rules committee meets at least annually I would guess, and they make minor changes all the time, or at least consider them.

[Telemark]

@not_alice

Baseball is not such a complex game by the rules It exists in a limited time and space. There is no reason that time and space can’t be internally consistent. It may already be - the question before us is, has anyone ever checked that it is or not?

As a software engineer and a baseball fan I can state that there would be no interest or gain from doing what you propose.

As a baseball fan, IMO, baseball doesn’t need more rules to cover what is adequately covered by the Umpire’s common sense. We let them call strikes and balls however they seem fit, they’re responsible for deciding whether a runner beats the ball without being physically able to see the runners foot and ball hitting the glove at the same time, and in general to control the flow of the game. More rules wouldn’t change that.

As an engineer I can state fairly comfortably that you vastly underestimate the rules you’d need to put in place to cover all eventualities. Human endeavors are much more complex then most software programs. I come up with use cases and error conditions all the time, and I’d never want to try it for baseball. The current rules actually cover things pretty thoroughly, with a catch-all error handler in the umpire.

[not_alice]

@Cheesesteak

Realist: If we have “one rule” to cover all possibilities, someone will exploit that rule to their advantage, then we need another rule to cover that. A more robust approach will have specific rules to cover normal game play, and allow the umpires who are the impartial rule keepers, to make intelligent choices for abnormal situations.

This makes no sense to me.

Can you give an example as to what this “one rule” might be, and what an exploit would be? And why if you can identify an exploit so easily, you wouldn’t simply figure a better approach to the rules in the first place before implementing it?

[Cheesesteak]

@not_alice

Can you give an example as to what this “one rule” might be, and what an exploit would be? And why if you can identify an exploit so easily, you wouldn’t simply figure a better approach to the rules in the first place before implementing it?

You’re the one who wants the games rules to cover all possible eventualities, yet somehow remaining compact enough for someone to actually understand them, you write the new rules.

Of course, I should have expected that you’d simply add to the requirement that these rules not only cover all possible eventualities succinctly, but that they are un-exploitable as well.

[not_alice]

@Telemark

As an engineer I can state fairly comfortably that you vastly underestimate the rules you’d need to put in place to cover all eventualities. Human endeavors are much more complex then most software programs. I come up with use cases and error conditions all the time, and I’d never want to try it for baseball. The current rules actually cover things pretty thoroughly, with a catch-all error handler in the umpire.

I don’t underestimate it.

Let’s look a the “pitch does not reach the plate” example.

In the case of a wild pitch in the stands, the rules already cover it. In fact, it applies if the pitch crosses the foul lines somewhere.

In the case where the pitch does not reach the plate and ends up in fair territory, it does not matter why any more than why we care if a pitch ends up on the screen or in the dugout.

There simply needs to be a single rule (or clarification of an existing rule) that the ball is live until a certain point and then it is dead, and if the pitch is a ball or strike.

I would say the pitch ought to be a ball, per a wild pitch, as the pitcher is obligated to pitch over the plate else risk a ball. I’d also say the ball ought be live while it is fair territory - runners can go as on a wild pitch. If ball manages to travel far enough to kick in ground rules such as “on the screen”, well, those rules are already in place.

No big deal.

That is all that is needed. Why it happens is of no consequence to the rules at all.

Seriously, look at the rules. they are not that long.

I don’t know what kind of software engineering you do, or your experience. Mine involves (among 25+ other years) working on systems that are responsible for the safe travel of satellites, requiring hundreds of man-years to analyze and implement and test and manage.

Compared to that (which in itself aint that much in the scheme of things either), checking the baseball rules for consistency is less complex than solving the sudoku puzzle in today’s paper.

Doing the consistency check is nearly trivial, which is why I was wondering if it has ever been done in MLB or by any other sanctioning organization. What the rules committee does with such a resulting report is another matter I suppose, but I only asked if the check has ever been done.

[not_alice]

@Cheesesteak

You’re the one who wants the games rules to cover all possible eventualities, yet somehow remaining compact enough for someone to actually understand them, you write the new rules.

Of course, I should have expected that you’d simply add to the requirement that these rules not only cover all possible eventualities succinctly, but that they are un-exploitable as well.

OK, so you are a “realist” but didn’t have anything in mind?

I am not trying to “gotcha”, I am honestly wondering what you had in mind when you posted the “realist” part.

Just curious. Have you ever read the rules with the intent of finding out the solution to a puzzler?

I hadn’t until the thread in the last week or two, despite having attended hundreds of major league games in my life.

Now I have, and I came away with a question about how the rules came to be the way that are. What is so bad about that?

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

Because it is a game - a closed system. Tic tac toe is a simple example where the rules are both complete and consistent. So is chess, and checkers. No reason baseball can;'t be checked the same way.

Actually, there is.

A game is just a system of constraints. With games like tic tac toe and chess, the constraints are all abstract. This means they can be rigorously defined, and the sort of analysis you’re describing is possible.

But with baseball the rules are not the only constraints on player action. Play is also limited by a number of real world factors – the physics of the ball, the terrain of the field, the physical capabilities of the players, and so on. While the rules attempt to make these factors as consistent as possible, it’s impossible to achieve the sort of rigor that abstract constraints have. Real world objects will always have the potential to exhibit unanticipated behaviors that lie outside the boundaries of the abstract rule set.

[RealityChuck]

@not_alice

There simply needs to be a single rule (or clarification of an existing rule) that the ball is live until a certain point and then it is dead, and if the pitch is a ball or strike.

Why, exactly, is such a rule necessary?

The one example about the bird didn’t create any problems with the game. No one was bothered by the umpire’s ruling, and any umpire ruling on the issue – and ignorant of precedent – would rule exactly the same.

So why is the rule necessary?

Compared to that (which in itself aint that much in the scheme of things either), checking the baseball rules for consistency is less complex than solving the sudoku puzzle in today’s paper.

You know what? There are some inconsistent rules in baseball (e.g, when running to first, you must run directly to the bag, but not in fair territory).

The game goes on nonetheless. It bothers no one but you.

[not_alice]

@The_Hamster_King

Actually, there is.

A game is just a system of constraints. With games like tic tac toe and chess, the constraints are all abstract. This means they can be rigorously defined, and the sort of analysis you’re describing is possible.

But with baseball the rules are not the only constraints on player action. Play is also limited by a number of real world factors – the physics of the ball, the terrain of the field, the physical capabilities of the players, and so on. While the rules attempt to make these factors as consistent as possible, it’s impossible to achieve the sort of rigor that abstract constraints have. Real world objects will always have the potential to exhibit unanticipated behaviors that lie outside the boundaries of the abstract rule set.

What you call “real world factors” are either part of the variation that makes the game interesting, or they are in fact covered under the rules, in this case the “ground rules”.

So for example, an existing rule that can not be checked for consistency is which one(s)?

Or for example, an existing gap in the rules that can not be filled is what?

[not_alice]

@RealityChuck

Why, exactly, is such a rule necessary?

The one example about the bird didn’t create any problems with the game. No one was bothered by the umpire’s ruling, and any umpire ruling on the issue – and ignorant of precedent – would rule exactly the same.

So why is the rule necessary?

Sure, then why are any rules necessary for the game?

Especially ground rules?

But seriously folks, I don’t know the game situation at the time RJ jit the bird. or even what the ruling was at the time.

But it has happened in other cases that the ball squirts out of the pitcher’s hand (probably happens occasionally).

What does it hurt to have a rule that fills a known gap? If there is one, I don’t know - remember my question here is, has MLB or other sanctioning org ever checked for consistency. Not what such inconsistencies might or might not be.

You know what? There are some inconsistent rules in baseball (e.g, when running to first, you must run directly to the bag, but not in fair territory).

OK. Possible case, sure. Can you quote me the relevant rules so we can see if they are consistent or not?

The game goes on nonetheless. It bothers no one but you.

It doesn’t bother me - it is the nature of baseball fandom and stewardship and historians to worry about the minutiae. As I found out last week, the evolution of baseball rules is a subset of fandom/history keeping I was not aware of until then.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to know how the rules evolved and how they might evolve in the future, or wanting to know how the rules have diverged in various sanctioning bodies around the world.

[brad_d]

@not_alice

Doesn’t apply in the scenario presented form the other thread because it specifically IS covered in the rules.

My response wasn’t meant to apply to the other thread’s scenario. It was a response to your question in this thread:

@not_alice

Also, is “let the ump decide” an actual rule?

[Munch]

@not_alice

But it has happened in other cases that the ball squirts out of the pitcher’s hand (probably happens occasionally).

What does it hurt to have a rule that fills a known gap? If there is one, I don’t know - remember my question here is, has MLB or other sanctioning org ever checked for consistency. Not what such inconsistencies might or might not be.

Jesus, aren’t you the one that urged everyone to do a quick read of the rules, because “they are not that long”?

8.01(d) If the pitcher makes an illegal pitch with the bases unoccupied, it shall be called a ball unless the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.
Rule 8.01(d) Comment: A ball which slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base.

[The_Hamster_King]

@not_alice

What you call “real world factors” are either part of the variation that makes the game interesting, or they are in fact covered under the rules, in this case the “ground rules”.

So for example, an existing rule that can not be checked for consistency is which one(s)?

Or for example, an existing gap in the rules that can not be filled is what?

Any gap can always be filled. The question is not whether gaps can be filled, but whether all gaps can be anticipated.

Because some of the constraints on play are real world properties than cannot be rigorously defined, it’s impossible to anticipate all possible gaps.

[not_alice]

@brad_d

My response wasn’t meant to apply to the other thread’s scenario. It was a response to your question in this thread:

I appreciate your pointing out the actual rule numbers, I do.

It is jsut that those rules don’t apply in the scenario as presented, and so we are left with no rule that lets the ump have authority in that case, because of the poor wording of the rule itself.

I am not saying the intent of the rule is not to let the ump decide, it is.

But that is probably a very early rule of baseball, historically speaking.

The specific rule I talk about seems to be much later, meant to fill in some gap, and does so incompletely it appears, and now it appears it also exists outside the “let the ump decide”.

Which means should that debate ever happen in a real game, the ump has no authority to even make the call (not that it would be anything other then arbitrary anyway if the applicable game rules are conflicting).

And that is exactly the type of consistency check I was wondering if it has ever been done.

[not_alice]

@Munch

Jesus, aren’t you the one that urged everyone to do a quick read of the rules, because “they are not that long”?

Yeah but I am not the one arguing that 8.01 does not apply to a bird, or this species or that species.

I argued that it would not be a major task in the scheme of things to do a consistency and completeness check, remember? After I asked if it has ever been done.

I also think that updating the rules in response to such a study would not be onerous or result in zillions more rules. If it became apparent that would be the case, then there is always the option to leave the rules alone, or to change them selectively somehow.

[Telemark]

Here’s the Randy Johnson vs Bird case:

Can you tell me what was called when Randy Johnson hit the dove with the ball (i.e. ball, dead ball, no pitch, or foul)?
– L. Crowder

That bizarre play is not covered in the Official Rules. When a situation is not covered, Rule 9.01(c) comes into play. That rule gives the umpire authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in the Rules. In such instances the umpire is instructed to use “common sense and fair play.” In this game, the umpires called it no pitch, as this was the fairest thing to do.

As a side-note, MLB Regulations do cover a batted or thrown ball (but not a pitched ball) touching an animal: “If a batted or thrown ball strikes a bird or other animal on the playing field, consider the ball alive and in play, the same as if it had not touched the bird or animal.”

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/feature.jsp?feature=qa1

Sure, a rule could be written to cover this specifically, but “common sense and fair play” covers it as well, and everyone was fine with the call. While I wouldn’t be against a specific rule to handle this case, since it clearly has happened once, it doesn’t seem worthwhile or beneficial to do a full review of the rules to this level. It would make the already complex rule system even more complex, and remove some of the joy of baseball that comes from the human factor.

[Chronos]

Am I the only one who finds it extremely disturbing that an engineer thinks it is possible to have a set of rules that are both complete and consistent, and which applies to a highly complicated system? Such a system of rules is known to be mathematically impossible, and I would expect an engineer to know that.