Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Are we wrong in questioning this system? You have significant influence within the game itself. You have earned that influence. Can you think of any better way to improve the game than spearheading a move toward a universal set of rules geared toward amateur baseball---even if those rules have various exceptions for age differences? BTW, I will buy the new amateur rulebook, casebook, and another BRD---to make your efforts worthwhile.
|
Perhaps Carl might say the same, but your idea here has already been implemented by the NFHS. That's right, FED rules. However, I don't really think the game was improved just because of FED rules, nor are FED umpires (vs. OBR umpires) any better or worse than OBR umpires. The FED book, while better written to accomplish what it intends, is no more comprehensive than the OBR. It is the "points not covered", not the "points confused" that is the biggest problem you want to remedy. Yes, we could attempt to do so by introducing a third book to the umpire's canon, the ABR as you seem to want to call it, but I'm not nuts about that idea.
Quote:
|
All the fuss that occurs is no different than different religions arguing the Bible. Their are varying views and interpretations in the many gray areas. People accept what best suits there needs. Some practice the philosophy of verbatim. Others practice the philosophy of intent and neo-romanticism, and others a mix of both to suit there own needs. Can you see the problem?
|
I am a Christian, and I have often made the same analogy in my mind. Interpreting the Bible does seem a lot like interpreting the OBR. However, there are a few important differences. The Bible is the inspired word of God; the OBR is the assembled bumblings of rules comittees. The Bible contains much figurative language; the OBR isn't supposed to. And lastly, the nature of God is of eternal and overwhelming significance; baseball is a kid's game.
Therefore, we must have vastly different standards, though perhaps we have a similar goal. When interpreting the Bible, I am willing to admit as possible anyone else's interpretation, as long as it does not deny that Jesus is the Messiah who reedeemed mankind in God's eyes. I do this because the goal is not to "be right" but to love, serve, and fellowship with anyone who says they love Christ. In interpreting the OBR, I am willing to admit and
immediately practice a consensus interpretation, because the goal is not to "be right" but to acheive a level of consitency in the league, so that the participants know what to expect. However, in either discipline, it is good to argue as long as the argument remains friendly and constructive and occurs in a suitable time and place.
P-Sz