|
Steve, I might get blasted for this (but what else is new), there is a reason the rule-makers put in 9.01(c). No matter how the book is re-written there will inevitably be something that is missed or still "grey in nature" , hence the need for 9.01(c). I know most knowledgable umpires do not like to simply rely on 9.01(c) as a basis for ruling but that EXPLICIT WORDING is in the rule-book.
Some of the authoritative opinion as you mentioned, NAPBL, JEA, J/R are someone's opinion and not "law" otherwise it would be in the rule-book. Don't get me wrong, these individuals have a tremendous amount of knowledge about baseball, but on some issues even they disagree among themselves in its application.
Also, let's face it most of the time when authoritative opinion is quoted in many a thread it is when we are discussing those Wierd Plays which hardly if ever actually happen.
Haven't seen or heard of many PRO Protests, so I do not know their exact heirachy as to what source they use.
FED is a little more clearer since they have their case book
analysis which is very helpful, but OBR does not have a case book but authoritative opinion.
The real problem I have with authoritative opinion is they are strictly dealing with PRO Interpretations and not necesaarily with Amateur Interpretations. I do not thin J/R Evans, etc. had 9 / 10 yr. old rugrats in mind when interpreting the rule book. It's strictly for the PRO game which we all know is a Different Ballgame (No Pun intended)
I do not have all of the authorutative opinion books. I am having enough trouble going through and understanding Papa C's BRD which I recently purchased (BTW I find it very useful). I also have the NAPBL. There are many books out there, but the question are they "law" still remains.
Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|