Well, compared to the systems I am used to, I don’t find the rules of baseball all that complex really. 8 year olds can comprehend them by virtue of their playing in organized leagues
As for the bird case, I don’t know that no pitch is the best call. It might be if there are no runners on base, but f there are runners, maybe a balk is in order. Or a wild pitch that is live and runners advance at their own risk.
And then, what would happen if the ball hit a bird but continued to the plate and the batter swung? Or given the ferocious fastball of the RJ of that era, the batter was already swinging when the pitch was hitting the bird? If the catcher catches it, is it to be called a ball or strike, or no pitch?
It is not hard to think of these things really, nor is it hard to account for them in the rules. What the rules are doesn’t matter to me, only that, in a game situation, they can only be interpreted one way unambiguously. I am fine letting others decide what that one way ought to be.
OK I am game for your proof if you are game to see it torn down.
And you think baseball rules are a complex system that can’t be closed (if they are not already, I don’t know, remember that is the OP)? Feh. You don’t know from complex.
But OK, sure, prove to us using the rules of logic unassailable that the rules of baseball can not be closed. Or provide a link to where someone has already done so. I am game, no pun intended.
But you’re the only one that’s even mentioned various species of birds. I think you’ve now, in your mind, assigned the strawmen you’ve set up to individual posters.
See post 12 for the introduction of bird species into this, or birds at all for that matter.
My OP, which I am still interested in, is simply to ask if the rules committee or anyone else, has ever checked the rules in the way I specified in post 1.
All the rest of this is amusing and fun, but it doesn’t answer the OP, and frankly, I am not sure why people don’t say “I don’t know the answer to the OP, but here is a fun fact to talk about …”.
Here’s a simple case. At what point does a ball become so damaged that it is unplayable? Obviously minor scuffs don’t matter. But if a ball disintegrates into several dozen parts, the game must stop. At some point between “scuffed” and “in multiple pieces” the ball must make a transition from playable to unplayable. How do you write a rule to specify the exact moment when that transition occurs without resorting to “The ump decides.”?
That says, “batted ball” (as opposed to “pitched ball”), and in context doesn’t appear to be offering up the species of the bird as relevant to the situation. You’re the one that illogically decided it did.
You’re unable to figure out that if people don’t say, “here’s a fun fact” that it is, in fact, a fun fact, and not an answer to your question? Seriously? Someone says, “I wonder what the rule would be if an ostrich laid an egg in the pitcher’s hand right as a gorilla steals the actual ball (unnoticed), pitches the ostrich egg, and the batter smashes it to tiny bits” and you can’t figure out that’s not an answer to your question?
Maybe not. Goedel’s Theorem is in theoretical mathematics, not applied. It’s not part of any engineering curriculum I know of.
Anyway, the rules of baseball are already substantially longer than for most sports. Not many people, even players and managers, know them all as it is. But anyone knows what fairness, good sportsmanship, and common sense are, and that’s all it takes to apply them, and for the decisions made on that basis to be accepted by all.
And we’ve decided that letting the Ump, who understands the context of the play and is in the best position to make the call, make the call. Look at all the variables you just introduced that would influence your decision on the play:
[ul]
[li]runners on base[/li][li]number of outs[/li][li]speed of the pitch[/li][li]runners on base already running[/li][li]whether the batter started his swing[/li][li]whether the ball looked like it might be a strike or a ball[/li][li]trajectory of the ball after the collision[/li][/ul]
Baseball isn’t built that way. To take the simplest thing, umps have lots of leeway to decide strikes and balls, no matter what it says in the rule book. The game of baseball is predicated on this type of human decision making. Everyone liked the ruling on the field, it makes common sense. It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem.
The rules committee reviews the rules from time to time as problems arise. I’m not seeing a problem here.
Thats a nice theory but you are making baseball sound way more complicated then it is,
If you have a complete proof, have at it please. Personally, having perused the rules, I can’t imagine that this is either already a closed system or easily closed.
If you can point to specific rules which provably can’t be closed, let me know which rule and what the proof is, in all its glory please.
Because of this assertion, I modify my OP to also ask, if the system is not closeable because it is viewed as some abstract system subject to proof, then does there exist an accepted proof of the assertion?
And we’ve decided that letting the Ump, who understands the context of the play and is in the best position to make the call, make the call. Look at all the variables you just introduced that would influence your decision on the play:
[ul]
[li]runners on base[/li]
Already covered in myriads of rules.
[li]number of outs[/li]
same
[li]speed of the pitch[/li]
Of no matter whatsoever. People can pitch as fast or slow as they are capable. of. The rules don’t care.
[li]runners on base already running[/li]
already covered by myriad of rules. No umps needed, not a judgment call.
[li]whether the batter started his swing[/li]
already covered in the rules what a checked swing is.
[li]whether the ball looked like it might be a strike or a ball[/li]
Huh? I will look momentarily, but I am pretty darn sure in order for a pitch to be called a strike, it needs to pass through a defined strike zone, else a ball. But a ball may need to cross one or more foul lines too, not sure right now.
not that this has anything to do with the game - no rule relies on the look of a pitch until it reaches the plate.
[li]trajectory of the ball after the collision[/li]
Yes.
[/ul]
All of this can be cleared up by simply making a rule or extending an existing one to define the case of a pitch hitting an object in the air (could be a hot dog wrapper more likely than a bird) as a non-pitch or whatever seems fair.
Not a hard situation to define or to clarify.
Baseball isn’t built that way. To take the simplest thing, umps have lots of leeway to decide strikes and balls, no matter what it says in the rule book. The game of baseball is predicated on this type of human decision making. Everyone liked the ruling on the field, it makes common sense. It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem.
Me either in this case.
I am more interested in the case I posited where the rules may be in conflict and a run hangs in the balance by definition.
If the rules committee meets as problems arise, then my question is simply, has anyone ever proactively looked for problems in the rules, and if so, what did the rules committee do? If not, why hasn’t the rules committee, knowing problems arise occasionally, sought to be proactive?
I didn’t say that the rules were a complex system; I said that what they’re describing is a complex system. Which they are, since all of the laws of physics can potentially be relevant to a baseball game. What happens if a meteor knocks the ball out of mid-air? And what if one of the players predicted the location of that meteor, and timed matters such that it would happen?
Or, heck, let’s just consider that bird getting hit by the pitch. You want to make a rule to cover that. Whatever rule you come up with is presumably going to be to a greater advantage of one side or the other. Let’s say that, in a particular game situation, the ball getting hit by a pitch would benefit the Yankees. So the Yankees general manager trains a bunch of pigeons to fly a particular course on command, such that one of them is likely to get hit by the pitch. Do the Yankees suffer any particular penalty for that? OK, now suppose that it’s the same situation, but the birds were trained by a Yankees fan who has no official connection to the team. What then? Does it matter which team the fan is rooting for? And if it does, how do you decide which team he roots for? Your rules now have to encompass all of human psychology.
My hunch (playing since I was 8, watched hundreds if not a thousand gamesin person at all levels across decades and on more than one continent and many times that on tv and radio) is that all gaps can be anticipated, and furthermore they can do so without making the existing rules more complex.
I feel less sure about that regarding eligibility, e.g., there are scientific uncertainties on a drug test e.g. But a rule can simply specify that a specific test must be passed with whatever measure is used for that test. That is fine and does not introduce inconsistency into the rules, although I would question if that is a good rule to have at all or not. But it does not affect the playing of the game itself in any matter, only roster eligibility.
OK once more with emphasis: You don’t need to anticipate each individual one, only their categories. Ground rule doubles apply regardless of the actual physical layout of the fence in this stadium or that one, e.g. We need not describe every possible shape or type of fence, only accept that it is there, and if the ball bounces over, here is the rule.
Easy as pie.
If you have some other physical constraint that can’t be anticipated, but might occur and actually affect a game, well, then the game itself is not really closed and is more like a roulette wheel where chance comes into it.
Anyway, what about the real case of the run scoring vs. not that I mentioned upthread? That goes back to the issue of consistency rather than completeness.
Elvis - If you are suggesting Goedel’s Theorem applies here, have at it. It was covered in my curriculum, but that was a while ago. My recollection is a little dusty, but if you want to make the case, it won’t go over my head, and I will either look up or ask for clarification as needed.
I think it is a ridiculous tool to use in this case, but I am open to having my ignorance fought. I think a paper with the title “Goedel’s Theorem and the Completeness of the Rules of Baseball” would be a hoot and I would seek it out for sure!
Which part of “the individual cases don’t matter, only the category” is not clear to you when dreaming up things that might collide with a ball in the air?
Of course the rules themselves are constraints. The questions at hand are these:
1 - where everyone seems focused: can they be complete?
and 2 - can they be consistent?
What brought up the question is a possible inconsistency that can be interpreted as allowuing a run to count on one hand, and disallowing it on the other.
I am honestly truly more interested in 2 then 1. I am not in the least bit persuaded by anyone’s argument one 1 so far, so repeating them in various guises is not going to persuade me, nor does it answer my OP.
Ar you kidding me?
You make a rule that covers a pitch colliding in flight with any object sufficient to deflect it or obstructs a batter’s vision of it (I can imagine a hot dog wrapper getting wrapped around a pitch on the way to a plate) and then it doesn’t matter who where why, that rule applies.
And we have rules for fan interference, they can easily be extended too, as needed, if they don’t already cover your case - and they do probably cover it - I have seen games where fans tossed or caused objects to interfere with play on the field - ranging from beach balls to batteries to beer. Why not birds too?)
Again: if you (specifically you) can anticipate where the gaps are in the rules, if it’s so obviously a solvable problem, why don’t you do so? Just look at the rules and you should be able to tell if they’ve been “checked for consistency,” right?
I don’t think I explained myself clearly. My list was to illustrate some of the thoughts that would go through your head to decide which was the “right” call on that Randy Johnson pitch. If it was clearly a wild pitch, one that hit a bird 20 feet up, would you have the same ruling if it hit a bird 3 feet directly in front of the strike zone? You yourself said you might call it a balk (why a balk?) if there were runners on base. What if the runners were going with the pitch on 3-2 with two outs? What if it was a runner stealing home? Would any of that change your mind about what is the “right” call? Because you’ll have to write a rule that takes care of all of those possibilities and still comes up with a ruling that everyone agrees is the “right” call. Or, you can let the Ump use his judgment and not worry about getting into arcane rules arguments.
In this case, I agree. But the end result is going to be exactly the same regardless of whether the rule is there or not, as the case with Randy Johnson already showed.
I think you’d have to show why, in the 100+ years of professional baseball, this hasn’t been a problem up until now, and why baseball should do something that apparently no other professional sport has undertaken. IMO, it seems like a pointless exercise. If there are specific cases that need review, the rules committee does so. Beyond that you’d need to provide some extraordinary evidence to convince people to do this major rules analysis and revision.
I already gave you an example: How much can a ball be damaged before it ceases to function as a ball?
The batter swings and the ball disintegrates into a dozen pieces. A fielder catches one piece. Is the batter out?
What if there are only five pieces?
Three?
Two?
What if just a little piece of stitching falls off and the ball is otherwise intact?
What if a little piece of stitching falls off and the fielder catches THAT. Is the batter out?
The rules of baseball are built around the idea of an IDEALIZED ball. Real baseballs closely resemble this idealized baseball, but may deviate from it in various ways. This gap between the real balls used to play the game and the ideal balls referred to in the rules prevents the closure of the system.
I say balk on the theory (which could be wrong) that the pitcher is obligated to deliver a pitch or a throw to the base using a limited set of motions without deception. Failure to do so when there is a runner is a balk.
So, if the pitcher fails to deliver the pitch to the plate despite going through the motions, one could argue it is deceptive as though he simply held on to the ball.
I know it is unfortunate for the pitcher, but I don’t see the harm in that rule. It could also be a no pitch, I’d probably be OK with that. But that was my reasoning on balk.
Location of runners is immaterial on a balk. Whether or not they are running on the pitch is already covered in the rules, so nothing need be added there if the cal is balk.
There are already rules covering that situation.
No, not really. By endeavoring to stay within the existing framework, which is, at worst, pretty darn close to complete to begin with, these situations are immaterial - they are already covered by both the balks and no-pitch rules as they are.
Where would extending existing rules to cover it cause a problem in this case? I don’t get it. What is not already covered?
I dunno. RJ case resulted in no-call, right? But a case could be made for a balk. Either way, why leave it up to the ump to figure out instead of simply noting it in the rules, or as a comment to the rules (which are common if you search the mlb rules)
Well, it is a problem if the rules need to be updated when shit happens. Not earthshaking, but still, rules change regularly enough.
It is a fair question to apply the OP to other sports. I don’t know if other sports have done it or not, or for that matter, if other sports, by their very nature, have closed systems for rules. I am inclined to think that basketball, for instance, has a close to closed and consistent system. There are probably many fewer rules. similarly for soccer. Probably for hockey imho. don’t have time to contemplate football right now. But the nature of baseball as a game is different from each of those.
We had a nice discussion on a play where it was not ultimately agreed, despite having umps and rules experts involved, whether a run scores or not. Not because it was a judgment call such as you might have on a scoring play in soccer or hockey, but by rule, did the run score?
Maybe the rule is clearer then we came up with and is not truly ambiguous, but it does raise the question of if all the rules are so checked if this particular one is iffy and hard to understand.
As for evidence, I think we already have preliminary evidence in that possibly ambiguous rule.
But this is not rocket science and anyone should be able to do it, or participate. The rules committee can do what they will with the result. The result may in fact turn out to be that the rules are already both complete and consistent, it is unknown by us in this thread at this time. But doing the analysis is not that big a deal, really.
Can you specify the actual rules you are referring to?
I tried to look it up but am running into software issues.
If you go to the rules section of mlb.com, and check the index, you will see there are only about 4 rules that deal with a ball, including a defaced ball. I haven’t been able to get to the details though. Can you look at it and see if it is covered there or elsewhere?
My guess is that a ball must meet a minimum standard before the play starts. What happens during the play is part of the game.
No reason why, even in your case, the rules couldn’t be closed by saying if the ball ended the play in some minimal condition, then the entire play is void and a no-pitch.
You can debate if that is the best solution or not, but it is feasible, within the spirit and history of weird one-off plays and closes the loop the same way the RJ Bird was closed. So you can’t argue that the loophole is not closeable, because it is.
