Uh, no. Look at my posts. Whenever I’m discussing something other than baseball, I’m responding to you.
If you use an analogy to make a point, and I question the validity of that analogy, that’s not “taking a random post or word out of context”.
Why do you have to apply THAT rule? I know you are not a baseball fan, but come on, the original post was about if the rules are complete or not.
If you can not find a rule to manage the situation, then posit it here as a possible incomplete rule candidate.
Hint - the index section might help guide your search.
Right - you found this thread, found something about chess to respond to, and since then it has been response ping-pong from you, despite repeated requests to focus your thoughts on the OP. Which I do think you might have interesting things to say about if you would simply focus.
Meantime, this thread, which read like GD instead of Game Room is dead. No one is here anymore but you and me.
Of course, if The Hamster King wasn’t around, that would leave just you, so I don’t know that you’re barking up the right tree on that front.
More likely, the source of your dissatisfaction is that we can’t give you what you’re looking for in this thread. The answer to your question is no, the thing you’re asking about hasn’t happened. As a corollary to the answer to your question there exists the apparent consensus that what you’re asking about is probably impossible, and almost definitely a silly idea. Wherever else the thread has gone or will go from here, that’s where it started.
And, as an aside, I suspect you’ve kind of been insulting the people who have disagreed with you with the whole “trained professional” angle which, coupled with the apparent consensus I mentioned above, probably explains the current state of the thread.
How am I supposed to post a rule to illustrate a gap? By definition a gap is a situation not covered by the rules.
I maintain that the rules of baseball do not address how to deal with a situation where the ball has been damaged to the extent that it is not clear whether it is in or out of the fielder’s glove. Rule 6.0.5(a) says that the batter is out if the ball is “legally caught”, and the comment to 6.0.5(b) defines what “legally caught” is, but the definition assumes that the ball is intact.
The comment to Rule 5.0.2 says that if a ball comes partially apart during play, the play counts. So we have a situation where the play must count, but the ball may neither be definitively in or out of the fielder’s glove, so the batter is neither defintiviely safe nor out.
Eh. Point taken. But I mentioned my training in the OP as a signal to the sort of analysis I was wondering about. Maybe people here didn’t understand that. I will take that into consideration in any future threads here. Maybe this place is not as geeky or interested in actual rhetoric or research techniques as I thought. Live and learn. Or not.
Actually, I already asked for this thread to be closed, as it seems to have veered off topic. Glad you are still here though, I confess surprise, thanks for sticking it out.
The earlier thread I referred to in the OP, there were people who were extremely interested i the rules, and at least one claiming to be active in certain historical research of the rules.
A “yes” or “no” answer to if MLB ever did something is not really helpful to me without more context, to be frank. Anyone off the street can simply say yes or no.
So you may be right that the collective “you” in this thread can’t help me. Not sure why folks answered anyway, if that is the case, but so be it.
I’d rather start over with a clearer question and have asked mods for permission to do so.
Some of the stuff with HK is interesting in its own right, but not furthering THIS thread, and that is frustrating. Interesting or not, IMHO it is hindering my receiving an answer to a sincere question in the OP.
You said you have a masters in comp sci. I am sure you can handle how to explain a gap bey referencing all the relevant cases at the edges of the gap.
Whether that is all correct or not, and I assume it is for now, you just performed part of the very analysis I was told in this thread can not be done.
Well done! At the doctorate level you would have been expected to find the definition of “ball”, but well done nonetheless!
What’s with the insulting tone?
You started out this thread assuming that the rules for baseball were a closed system, and so could be checked for consistency and completeness.
I, and others, have argued that the rules for baseball are not a closed system, and so no matter how many new rules you create, it will always be possible to come up with new scenarios that would demonstrate a lack of completeness. (And, potentially, consistency … since the larger the system becomes the more likely that it will suffer from internal contradictions.)
I just gave you an example of how the real-world behavior of a baseball can create an inconsistency in the formal rules. You can redefine the rules to account for this particular case, but because the rules for baseball are not a closed system, it will always be possible to come up with new possible real-world situations that fall into gaps in the rules.
Congratulating you for doing on-topic masters level work is insulting?
Hmm might need to reconside that masters level work. Damn.
I started off assuming nothing. I asked if such work had been done.
I don’t know, not having either done the work myself nor having been presented with the work of others, if the rules of baseball are consistent and complete.
I strongly suspect they are not, because, as I mentioned, an earlier thread turned up a case where it may be that a situation can occur that can plainly be counted as a run scoring while simultaneously not counting as a run scoring.
I personally am not convinced both cases apply, but the thread was split on which one applied. This, being the open minded and inquisitive chap that I am, is what led me to consider that perhaps the rules are not in fact consistent throughout.
Said evidence having been discovered, and said thought having occurred, the next step was to seek to research the matter.
Hence the OP.
Pretty much all of that is in the OP, isn’t it?
Yes you have argued that, and not persuasively it appears. Arguing by repeating is not helpful in persuading.
because somewhere along teh line, you argued against yourself and said you can close the system by having a rule that says “ask the ump”. Given that the ump is part of the game, not an arbitrary guy off the street (check the rules), you ipso facto 
shoot yourself in the foot with the short argument despite the loquaciousness of all the rest.
Like I said, state it as a formal proof if you want to go in that realm. You can’t have it both ways - impossible to close and possible to close.
Perhaps you think someone is trying to do away with the “ask the ump” rule?
Not that it is always necessary, as I have demonstrated with most if not all of the contrived examples presented so far.
I know this has been a long back and forth, but really, you have in fact argued against your own case, and that part was actually the more persuasive part.
Then you went and did a small portion of the analysis that you or others (don’t remember who) said could not be done, thereby demonstrating it could in fact be done.
Sorry if that bugs you to be so helpful. I know it is not a satisfying outcome 
But do treat my thanks as sincere while you wrestle with the wonder of it all.
I didn’t say you assumed that the rules of baseball HAD been checked for consistency. I said you started off assuming the rules of baseball were a closed system CAPABLE of being checked for consistency. From your post #9:
and your post #52
What we’ve been trying to point out is that the open nature of baseball will cause it to always fail these sorts of attempts at verfication. No matter how you write and rewrite the rules there will ALWAYS be gaps and inconsistencies.
Because I assumed you weren’t interested in “ask the ump” after you explicitly dismissed it in post #5:
You clearly started out believing that the rules could be made complete without resorting to “ask the ump”. I can understand why, because if you include “ask the ump” in the rule set then the analysis to determine completeness is trivial and uninteresting. An “ask the ump” rule automatically closes all gaps.
I did not say such an analysis couldn’t be done. I said it will ALWAYS reveal gaps and inconsistencies in the rule set, making it worthless as a methodology for this particular domain.
You have a big hammer, not_alice. You’re obviously very, very good at using your big hammer. And you’re assuming that baseball is a nail. But it’s not.
Ask yourself this: If its possible to make the rules of baseball formally consistent and complete, why hasn’t it already been done? After all, as you yourself admit, it’s a fairly simple system. Why hasn’t the rules committee taken steps to eliminate rules disputes forever? Are they just stupid? And even if the rules committee for baseball is stupid, why are the rules committees for all other sports stupid in the same way? Why can’t the high jump guys write out their one frickin’ page of rules without resorting to “ask the ump”? The governing bodies for games like chess and go don’t seem to be stupid that way. They seem to be able to write their rules so they don’t contain any gaps or ambiguities or appeals to arbitrary decisions by referees. Why are they so smart when the baseball guys are so stupid? Is it perhaps because there’s some fundamental difference between games like chess and games like baseball? Some underlying reason why some rule sets are capable of being consistent and complete and others are not?
A system need not be closed to check it for consistency or completeness. Why would I assume that?
I know you are TRYING to point that out, but you are missing the point - that what you actually did point out, again in this post, is that the rules can be made consistent against all your arguments.
You, not being a baseball fan, which is fine, and apparently never having read and understood the rules, seem to be failing to realizing that the ump IS a fundamental part of the game. “Ask the ump” is acceptable in this game.
You can argue about a world where that is not true all you want, bit it s not the world we are discussing.
OK. so you erred in missing how that changed, No big deal. Stop harping on it and consider if your position has changed as a result.
At this point, wiothout having DONE THE ANALYSIS, I take no postioin on that at all.
You haven’t done the analysis either, and every example you gave I gave a counter example and then you started talking about chess.
So it is an open question to me, since I haven’t done the details. You, OTOH, seem convinced, without knowing all the rules, or reading them, or being a fan of the game with lots of experience as a result, to be certain of yourself. Forgive me if it is not persuasive.
I am not saying you couldn’t persuade me, but appeals to examples rather than formal theory, when you posit it in formal theory to begin with just makes me wonder how well you understand the theory, or if you are just mimicking something and getting caught in the details?
This is what I mean. You have a big hammer too (theoretical underpinnings of set theory or something like that). Either use it or stop pretending you have it. forget the analogies, give me your straight proof from conjecture to q.e.d. I can handle it.
I don’t know if it has been done or not. Notice the actual question in the OP yet?
How exactly would you know if it was done or not?
In any case, the history of baseball rules appears to be an arcane matter all itself dating back well over a century and a half. I can’t even begin to fathom what if any efforts have been made, or even anything beyond the barest outline of the scope of the history itself.
I don’t know if they have or haven’t. Do you?
I have given not an iota of thought beond baseball except for the small examples in this thread.
I have referenced that there are multiple rules sanctioning bodies in the world in baseball alone. I have no info right now on the history or makeup of any of them.
As for other sports, you are welcome to ask in another thread. This one is about baseball.
Really? When there is a chess tournament or championship match, there is no referr or other officials to make sure rules are fiollowed and disputes settled?
If you want an example of a sport where there are no refs despite there being a rules sancitioning body, Ultimate Frisbee is the place to go.
Please direct responses regarding sports and games other than baseball to another thread please. Maybe you will pick up some new folks in a new thread to discuss this with.
But pretty please with a cherry on top. let this one be about baseball only please please please.
Aside that I dispute that there are no officials in sanctioned chess matches, yes, I explained earlier there is a fundamental difference. Chess is a discrete finite game. Baseball is not in its physics, but that is irrelevant when if comes to devising a rule set in such a space. Baseball’s space is both discrete and continuous in various axes.
You tell me. You already proved “ask the ump” is sufficient to close it, and baseball (and many other games) have that rule or its equivalent. Ultimate Frisbee’s rules say essentially work it out in the spirit of the game and sportsmanship. That closes it too in the same way.
So I don’t understand why you keep arguing it can’t be done in alternate breaths with saying it can be done.
Remember, instead of going point by point, how about an actual proof in formal terms since you keep talking about formal systems. Either from you or some link somewhere else.
Let’s move on to that please. The rest is just endless rehash. If you want to persuade me, that is where the persuasion likely lies.
The question seems to be whether 9.01© leaves too much to the judgement of the umpire.
I honestly can’t think of that many instances over the years that an umpire had to make a snap decision that couldn’t be either affirmed or overturned on appeal on the basis of an existing rule.
Randy Johnson and the bird was one example. Stu Miller getting knocked off balance during his windup by a gust of wind was another. (That was ruled a balk.) Maybe the time two balls wound up in play.
But honestly, those are the only ones I can think of.
If anyone wants to provide more examples of bizarre plays that the rules don’t cover, or where two rules collide and neither takes precedence, I’ll change my opinion. But three cases in more than a century doesn’t strike me as a serious problem.
Thanks for joining in.
Of course it is not a “serious problem”.
But the lengths to which baseball people will go in the search of arcana knows few bounds
It is basically an academic exercise is all, but so was sabermetrics at one time.
The original claim, as modified by you, was that we COULD analyze and specify a complete gapless ruleset for baseball, not whether or not we can analyze it in general.
Frankly, I think I speak for most of the observers of the thread when I say I’d love you to take a few days and actually do that 1st-year engineer analysis and rewrite of the rules that you said would be so easy way back when.
–Z, systems engineer–I know from daily experience that people will both accidentally and purposefully find even the slightest gaps in the rules and pry them open with a crowbar, and that is exponentially more problematic the more real-world objects (as opposed to abstractions) are involved.
Well to be fair, my question was, could it be done, I was wondering about it
I am pretty sure it could be done at this point, and as I said, I am more interested personally in the types of errors that spurred the question in the first place: Can a single situation be interpreted multiple ways?
I don’t think anyone has said that part of it can’t be done.
Actually, what I will probably do first is ask here for recommended baseball-heavy boards and re-pose the question there, then decide how to proceed.
Not sure what you mean by “accidentally pry open the rules of baseball”? Last I looked, the rules exist only in abstraction, Hamster King’s claims otherwise notwithstanding.
And speaking of HK, I looked last night at the “Laws of Chess” and additional rules for playing a computer by the sanctioning body FIDE.
It is not as he says - in both cases, the sanctioned rules specify that a board MUST be used. A computer has to have an operator that moves the piece, hits the clock, and enters moves via input device. This is very clear in the rules.
Sure, you could easily play an alternative without that, but that is outside the sanctioned rules. similarly, we could play baseball with a softball or even stickball, but those are variations of baseball, fun and recognizable as they may be, they are not examples of playing by the sanctioned rules, which is what I asked about.
So I really don’t understand his picking and choosing selectively - the very first paragraph in the preamble to the rules of chess specifies a board. It is very clear. I don’t think he was being very helpful in either supporting his own position or fighting my ignorance.
I think you’d be better off going to a systems analysis message board and asking for baseball fans, rather than going to a baseball message board looking for system analysis fans.
If it were found that having a pitch hit a bird and not cross home plate resulted in a ball (a situation much discussed earlier - go with it), I could very well see Theo Epstein pouring large sums of money training birds to interfere with Joba Chamberlin’s pitches on a regular basis. In fact, I believe Cleveland already beat him to it, but did it with bugs.
Actually, I did ‘get’ it. That is, I get your position, but I disagree with it. There is nothing special about the case.
Runner stealing home. Ball hits runner in strike zone. On every out/strike combination EXCEPT when there are 2 outs & 2 strikes, the ball is dead, and the run scores.
Runner stealing home. Ball does not hit runner. Runner scores UNLESS the batter strikes out for strike three to end the inning. If the batter walked with the bases loaded, the run would still score, but it would be on an RBI walk by the batter.
So why wouldn’t the run score when hit in the strike zone with 2 out & 2 strikes? Simple. The batter has struckout for the final out. So when the runner is stealing home, is not hit by the pitch, and crosses the plate before the batter strikes out, it is the same result. The batter struckout to end the inning. Since the batter/batter-runner did not reach base with all other runners advancing at least one base, if forced, there can be no run.
No run can score unless the batter and all other runners, if forced, reach at least one base. You are hung up on the rule that says something like ‘before the batter-runner’ reaches base.’ I’ve agreed the rule could be written better, but where it says ‘batter-runner’ it means ‘batter/batter-runner.’ Surely, if a run can’t score if a batter-runner doesn’t reach base, it doesn’t score if the batter doesn’t even become a batter-runner.
Actually, throwing the hat is in the rules. The award is three bases. However, the ball is live, meaning the runner can try for home at his own peril. [Rule 7.05(b)]
However, adding the wrinkle of the fielder then throwing the ball out of play is an interesting one. I really don’t know, but my thinking is the umpire would award home on the error, since the batter was already entitled to 3 bases on the thrown hat.
Let’s keep the debate form the other thread, you know, in the other thread. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in this one, and not, you know, say you are wrong, like I did in the other thread, because that is not the topic of this one.
Today I was watching the CBS evening news (although I still miss Dan Rather), and they had a story about a switch pitcher in the Yankees’ minor league system. Last year, he was facing a switch hitter, so a ballet of sorts began. The pitcher switched his glove to his opposite hand, so the batter switched sides of the plate to keep the advantage, and so the pitcher switched hands again, and the batter switched back to the other batter’s box again. Eventually the umpire had to force the batter to choose one side to bat from. Shortly after that, a rule was written that a switch pitcher has to declare which arm he will use before a switch hitter comes up to bat.