|
Regarding my question of how the umpiring community is made aware of "official interpretations" :
Dave Hensley (quoted):
"...to answer your question, I am aware of two, and only two, sources of "current" PBUC interpretations. They are (1) Jim Booth, moderator of the umpire discussion boards at eteamz.com, and (2) Carl Childress, author of Baseball Rule Differences and baseball editor at eumpire.com. Both of these individuals have established working agreements with PBUC officials to submit case plays and receive PBUC rulings.
I do not know of their being "published" in any manner other than they're being passed along by the facilitators, Mr. Booth and Mr. Childress, in those individuals' respective venues (eteamz for Booth, BRD and eumpire.com for Childress.)
Imperfect as this process may be, it's still better than what we had before, which was nuttin, honey
First, Dave, I would like to thank you for providing an answer to my question. Isn't it amazing how we on the boards, who are so few compared to the numbers of umpires out in the field, can discuss "official interpretations"---and even then, critique one another based upon that. That probably puts us in the upper 1% of officials regarding current knowledge. That means 99% would still be officiating according to the rulebook, NAPBL, JEA, J/R or whatever best published data they may depend on. Should we require or demand published data in order for interpretations to become official?
I wish not to question the accuracy and integrity of Jim or Carl as there is no reason to do so. However, a system exists whereby we say we should officiate and accept these rulings and interpretations as "official", yet there is no "official" means of conveying this information to the general officiating community. Are Carl and Jim even considered "official"? In other words, is what they deliver possibly only opinion of PBUC? What makes the interpretation "official"?
Somehow, when someone tells me I should go by the "official interpretation" and be in that 1%, I have to question if I shouldn't be in the remaining 99% of umpires until an "official" interpretation is published. What occurred before the days of Jim and Carl? Where did officials get there info back then?
Now, we can see the fallacy in the "system" of providing official interpretation to the umpiring community, let's talk about the level differentials. Even Carl listed in one of his lists the need to have variances in "official interpretation" between Pro and amateur. Why do we keep trying to apply PBUC interpretation to amateur? Why not get someone like Carl and Jim to tie their influence together with ABUA and develop something that can better service the entire amateur officiating community? Approach the major amateur leagues, get their input, and get "official".
I think that would be appreciated greatly by the majority of amateur umpires in the field. Perhaps talking "official" and being "official" are really 2 different things.
I confess that I feel these stated weaknesses are far beyond the trivialities I have seen debated around the boards for months. Perhaps we have been discussing treatment of the symptoms all along instead of attacking the problem. Can anything be done to improve such major shortcomings faced by amateur umpires?
Just a thought,
Steve
Member
EWS
|