[This is part of a series exploring the Baseball Tarot. If you would like to prompt for a part of the game or a card from the deck, there's only a little space left. Leave a comment with a prompt. All other comments are still welcome, of course.]
For![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
onyxlynx, whose baseball knowledge likely eclipses my own.
In any contest between opposing forces, rules exist to define the conditions of victory and defeat, and to attempt to make the contest as fair as possible and dependent only on the skill of the players. Even that paen to anarchism that is Calvinball has one permanent rule: You cannot play it the same way twice. And even that single rule is enough to define the game, give it shape, and tell us what kind of player will succeed at it. Unsurprisingly, once Rosalyn understood the nature of the game, she became its greatest player immediately, as her vast experience in the realm of imagination swiftly outstripped Calvin's.
In baseball, the rules are mutable and changeable, often in response to something that has happened that upsets the balance too far in the direction of the defense or offense, or that clearly violates the spirit or letter of playing a fair game. For example, batted balls at Chicago's Wrigley Field have the possibility of becoming lodged or lost in the ivy that covers the outfield fences. It would clearly not be fair to the defense to force them to find the ball in the ivy and then throw it in, with runners advancing all the while. So, should the ball get lost in the ivy, the batter and all runners are awarded two bases from where they were when the ball was pitched. It's a compromise, and such "ground rules" are present in most playing fields today, as many of them have a unique feature or quirk that requires a ruling on how they should be treated when a player or the ball interacts with them. Other rules include the automatic double that happens when a batted ball leaves the field of play after touching down in fair territory without being touched by a fielder, again in the interests of fairness, this time to the defense, as they used to be considered home runs for some time.
One of the more interesting rule patches is the Infield Fly Rule. It can seem a bit confusing at first, especially to newcomers to baseball, but here's the gist of why it's there: Any batted ball caught by a fielder in the air, in the field of play, is an out, after which any runners may advance at their peril so long as they have touched the base they last legally obtained at the time of or after the catch. Any runners who have not touched the last legal base at the time of the catch can be put out if a fielder with the ball touches the base before the runner does. Also, any runner who is being forced to try and take the next base on a batted ball because the batter (or a runner behind them) has the legal right to their base, which occurs as soon as the ball touches the ground in fair territory and doesn't cross into foul territory before being played or passing out of the infield, can be put out if a fielder in possession of the ball touches the base they are being forced to before they touch that base. Handled properly, this means ground balls on the infield can often be used to record multiple outs, so long as the fielders collect them in such a way as to preserve force outs down the chain (f'rex, by forcing out the runner going to second base from first (being pushed by the batter-runner) before then collecting the force out at first base (which the batter-runner must obtain, being forced to leave home plate by the next batter in the lineup)). Double plays are common this way, and very rarely, it's possible to record a triple play this way, of the runners on the bases are not particularly swift and the ball is batted at the third baseman near third base.
So, on the question of a fly ball batted that stays in the infield, efficient baseball players, with the rules as they are above, recognize a perverse incentive present - they can collect more outs by making a show of catching the ball in the air (forcing all the runners to hold to their bases to prevent being put out) but not actually catching the ball, instead letting it touch the ground and then picking it up to throw to an appropriate base to start a force out chain that will likely take the leading two runners, if not make all three outs at once. This is clearly unfair to the offense, who have to basically telegraph which option they are choosing to believe will happen, allowing the defense to select the opposite scenario and connect multiple outs.
Thus, the Infield Fly Rule, which is unlikely to be called or commented on during a television broadcast, was created to handle this problem. It says that if there is a scenario where the perverse incentive is in play (f'rex, baserunners at first and second base) and there are less than two outs in the inning (as all someone has to do to end the inning with two outs is catch the ball), then any fly ball that, in the umpire's judgement at the zenith of the fly ball's arc, can be caught with ordinary effort and that fails to leave the infield, results in the batter being declared out by the umpire as if the ball had been caught.
The Rule is fair to the defense, giving them the out they can expect to obtain from the fly ball, but I'd also fair to the offense, and it does so fairly elegantly - by declaring the batter to be out, the perverse incentive is also removed, as no runners are then in a forcing situation, and can either stay at their base or attempt to move forward according to the normal rules regarding fly balls. Which is the desired outcome in those kinds of scenarios.
The associated Tarot card for this and all other rules, patches, and interpretations is the Rule Book. As the authoritative codex of the game, it provides structure and the universal truths of baseball. The Rule Book backstops the authority of the umpire and is the word by which appeals to the umpire or disputes with the umpire, as in games played under protest, are made. The Rule Book provides methods for appeals in addition to the requirements that it has for teams and players. It is also always in flux, like any other book of laws, as players, coaches, managers, and others strive to find any advantage they can get that isn't explicitly forbidden, and the writers of the rules move to patch those holes during the following season. In a Rider-Waite deck, this card would be Judgement, with the court and law implications that come along with it. If they appear in a reading, the suggestion is that one needs to return to the source material for guidance - instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of the rules, go check them out yourself and see what they have to say. You may come to the same conclusion as the umpire does, or you may not. In either case, though, you have done the scholarly work of actually reading the rules that you are supposed to be playing by, which puts you in a category above many others, who just listen to their arbiters, because it's easier to do that than to think for yourself. By actually knowing the rules, however, you can often work your way out of a jam that would otherwise seem impossible to resolve. For some people, that's the reason they can stay in their community, and for others, it's the reason they have to leave.
There are two negative sides of the Rule Book, though - the Rules Lawyer and the Literalist. Rules Lawyers examine the rules in detail to find exploitable loopholes and places and then leverage those loopholes to give themselves an unfair advantage. No matter how much it might violate the spirit of the game, a Rules Lawyer will say that unless it is explicitly forbidden, it's permissible. Many rules systems prevent Rules Lawyering and other Munchkin behavior by adding a rule that says the umpires have the authority to bend, break, or outright ignore the rules if doing so would be more beneficial to the game than allowing the Rules Lawyer to run roughshod over everything. In baseball, as in coding, once an exploit is known, a patch will be swiftly issued to address the problem. It may not take effect until the next season (Patch Tuesday for baseball), but it will be addressed. Dealing with a Rules Lawyer often means finding a way to let them do their thing without affecting the rest of the game, or in setting up situations where those tendencies will get them in trouble (by playing many games of Paranoia, for example). It may also work if the other players just agree not to play with a Rules Lawyer. (Or, you get a group of them together and sic then on the Tomb of Horrors.)
Literalists, on the other hand, insist that the scope of permissible actions is limited solely to the explicit text of the rules and that all other actions cannot be taken, even if a variation based on the rules and in the spirit of the game would have better results. Where the Rules Lawyer uses the rules to escape control, the Literalist uses the rules to enforce control, often offering only a single acceptable path through the game and reserving for themselves the right to declare when you've gone off that path. A Literalist might insist that if the umpires don't make the "hammer" gesture when calling strikes or outs, then those calls aren't valid, because the "hammer" gesture is the only one actually described for use in the rule book. Clearly, the point is for the umpire to make an indication, and it really is a better game for optics and television when the close play at the plate gets an appropriately dramatic call from the umpire. Literalists will often slow the game down with their objections and angle for a way to get themselves put in power so they can enforce what their idea of the rules are on everyone else.
If you want to know why your country's legal system is such a hodgepodge and so badly allergic to common sense, remember that most people who end up in court will be Literalists paying Rules Lawyers to represent them. And that the Rule Book can't patch itself, either with new law or judicial ruling, fast enough to keep up, even if it is operating at peak efficiency without all the lobbying and other problems.
Sometimes it's nice only having to think about the rules for baseball.
For
onyxlynx, whose baseball knowledge likely eclipses my own.In any contest between opposing forces, rules exist to define the conditions of victory and defeat, and to attempt to make the contest as fair as possible and dependent only on the skill of the players. Even that paen to anarchism that is Calvinball has one permanent rule: You cannot play it the same way twice. And even that single rule is enough to define the game, give it shape, and tell us what kind of player will succeed at it. Unsurprisingly, once Rosalyn understood the nature of the game, she became its greatest player immediately, as her vast experience in the realm of imagination swiftly outstripped Calvin's.
In baseball, the rules are mutable and changeable, often in response to something that has happened that upsets the balance too far in the direction of the defense or offense, or that clearly violates the spirit or letter of playing a fair game. For example, batted balls at Chicago's Wrigley Field have the possibility of becoming lodged or lost in the ivy that covers the outfield fences. It would clearly not be fair to the defense to force them to find the ball in the ivy and then throw it in, with runners advancing all the while. So, should the ball get lost in the ivy, the batter and all runners are awarded two bases from where they were when the ball was pitched. It's a compromise, and such "ground rules" are present in most playing fields today, as many of them have a unique feature or quirk that requires a ruling on how they should be treated when a player or the ball interacts with them. Other rules include the automatic double that happens when a batted ball leaves the field of play after touching down in fair territory without being touched by a fielder, again in the interests of fairness, this time to the defense, as they used to be considered home runs for some time.
One of the more interesting rule patches is the Infield Fly Rule. It can seem a bit confusing at first, especially to newcomers to baseball, but here's the gist of why it's there: Any batted ball caught by a fielder in the air, in the field of play, is an out, after which any runners may advance at their peril so long as they have touched the base they last legally obtained at the time of or after the catch. Any runners who have not touched the last legal base at the time of the catch can be put out if a fielder with the ball touches the base before the runner does. Also, any runner who is being forced to try and take the next base on a batted ball because the batter (or a runner behind them) has the legal right to their base, which occurs as soon as the ball touches the ground in fair territory and doesn't cross into foul territory before being played or passing out of the infield, can be put out if a fielder in possession of the ball touches the base they are being forced to before they touch that base. Handled properly, this means ground balls on the infield can often be used to record multiple outs, so long as the fielders collect them in such a way as to preserve force outs down the chain (f'rex, by forcing out the runner going to second base from first (being pushed by the batter-runner) before then collecting the force out at first base (which the batter-runner must obtain, being forced to leave home plate by the next batter in the lineup)). Double plays are common this way, and very rarely, it's possible to record a triple play this way, of the runners on the bases are not particularly swift and the ball is batted at the third baseman near third base.
So, on the question of a fly ball batted that stays in the infield, efficient baseball players, with the rules as they are above, recognize a perverse incentive present - they can collect more outs by making a show of catching the ball in the air (forcing all the runners to hold to their bases to prevent being put out) but not actually catching the ball, instead letting it touch the ground and then picking it up to throw to an appropriate base to start a force out chain that will likely take the leading two runners, if not make all three outs at once. This is clearly unfair to the offense, who have to basically telegraph which option they are choosing to believe will happen, allowing the defense to select the opposite scenario and connect multiple outs.
Thus, the Infield Fly Rule, which is unlikely to be called or commented on during a television broadcast, was created to handle this problem. It says that if there is a scenario where the perverse incentive is in play (f'rex, baserunners at first and second base) and there are less than two outs in the inning (as all someone has to do to end the inning with two outs is catch the ball), then any fly ball that, in the umpire's judgement at the zenith of the fly ball's arc, can be caught with ordinary effort and that fails to leave the infield, results in the batter being declared out by the umpire as if the ball had been caught.
The Rule is fair to the defense, giving them the out they can expect to obtain from the fly ball, but I'd also fair to the offense, and it does so fairly elegantly - by declaring the batter to be out, the perverse incentive is also removed, as no runners are then in a forcing situation, and can either stay at their base or attempt to move forward according to the normal rules regarding fly balls. Which is the desired outcome in those kinds of scenarios.
The associated Tarot card for this and all other rules, patches, and interpretations is the Rule Book. As the authoritative codex of the game, it provides structure and the universal truths of baseball. The Rule Book backstops the authority of the umpire and is the word by which appeals to the umpire or disputes with the umpire, as in games played under protest, are made. The Rule Book provides methods for appeals in addition to the requirements that it has for teams and players. It is also always in flux, like any other book of laws, as players, coaches, managers, and others strive to find any advantage they can get that isn't explicitly forbidden, and the writers of the rules move to patch those holes during the following season. In a Rider-Waite deck, this card would be Judgement, with the court and law implications that come along with it. If they appear in a reading, the suggestion is that one needs to return to the source material for guidance - instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of the rules, go check them out yourself and see what they have to say. You may come to the same conclusion as the umpire does, or you may not. In either case, though, you have done the scholarly work of actually reading the rules that you are supposed to be playing by, which puts you in a category above many others, who just listen to their arbiters, because it's easier to do that than to think for yourself. By actually knowing the rules, however, you can often work your way out of a jam that would otherwise seem impossible to resolve. For some people, that's the reason they can stay in their community, and for others, it's the reason they have to leave.
There are two negative sides of the Rule Book, though - the Rules Lawyer and the Literalist. Rules Lawyers examine the rules in detail to find exploitable loopholes and places and then leverage those loopholes to give themselves an unfair advantage. No matter how much it might violate the spirit of the game, a Rules Lawyer will say that unless it is explicitly forbidden, it's permissible. Many rules systems prevent Rules Lawyering and other Munchkin behavior by adding a rule that says the umpires have the authority to bend, break, or outright ignore the rules if doing so would be more beneficial to the game than allowing the Rules Lawyer to run roughshod over everything. In baseball, as in coding, once an exploit is known, a patch will be swiftly issued to address the problem. It may not take effect until the next season (Patch Tuesday for baseball), but it will be addressed. Dealing with a Rules Lawyer often means finding a way to let them do their thing without affecting the rest of the game, or in setting up situations where those tendencies will get them in trouble (by playing many games of Paranoia, for example). It may also work if the other players just agree not to play with a Rules Lawyer. (Or, you get a group of them together and sic then on the Tomb of Horrors.)
Literalists, on the other hand, insist that the scope of permissible actions is limited solely to the explicit text of the rules and that all other actions cannot be taken, even if a variation based on the rules and in the spirit of the game would have better results. Where the Rules Lawyer uses the rules to escape control, the Literalist uses the rules to enforce control, often offering only a single acceptable path through the game and reserving for themselves the right to declare when you've gone off that path. A Literalist might insist that if the umpires don't make the "hammer" gesture when calling strikes or outs, then those calls aren't valid, because the "hammer" gesture is the only one actually described for use in the rule book. Clearly, the point is for the umpire to make an indication, and it really is a better game for optics and television when the close play at the plate gets an appropriately dramatic call from the umpire. Literalists will often slow the game down with their objections and angle for a way to get themselves put in power so they can enforce what their idea of the rules are on everyone else.
If you want to know why your country's legal system is such a hodgepodge and so badly allergic to common sense, remember that most people who end up in court will be Literalists paying Rules Lawyers to represent them. And that the Rule Book can't patch itself, either with new law or judicial ruling, fast enough to keep up, even if it is operating at peak efficiency without all the lobbying and other problems.
Sometimes it's nice only having to think about the rules for baseball.
