[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

Carl, you start out stating that your BRD has "opinions" of certain porfessionally related authorities, yet near the end of of your post you reference these as "official interpretations". Which is correct?

Look at it this way -- the entire rulebook is one man's or group's opinion on how the game should be played. The U.S. Constitutuion is one group's opinion on how the nation should be governed. It's because of the positions these groups are in that gives their opinions more weight than yours or mine. Jim Evans might give his opinion on a ruling, but if Bud Selig gave a different opinion of the same situation, guess which one would be treated as "official?"

We also need to recognize the broad majority of baseball played is amateur and not professional, yet we continue to accept and apply interpretations and opinions directed from and specifically for the professional level. Can you see the problem? No wonder there are inconsistencies on the diamonds. Am I supposed to take pride in enforcing an interpretation that is different than that which is in the rulebook, different than that which the coaches have seen published, and different than that which even my partner(s) may be aware of? Of course, I can tell them "I am right and current. I got it off the internet!" Can you see the problem?

I'll probably never convince the UIC in my local youth league that the hands are never part of the bat, but because the rulebook never specifically states that he'll never believe me. Hell, even if it did say that in the BRD, NAPBL, JEA, or other source he still wouldn't buy it because it's not in the book that counts.

In my 12 years of umpiring I have never heard any mention of any other source of rulings, whether "official" or "authoritative opinion." Most believe that if it ain't in the book, it's up to individual interpretation. One time I asked my supervisor, a man I still respect to this day, if on a caught fly ball a runner is required to retouch a base if he left early. He "ruled" that the runner was not required, but after reading other sources I know this not to be true.

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.

I've ruled under the OBR throughout my entire officiating career. This year will mark the first I'll call FED ball. And what do they hand out to both umpires and coaches at these rules clinics? A rule book, case book, and umpire manual. All three written for the amateur game. Does Pop Warner football use the NFL rulebook? I doubt it. Does the local church basketball league use the NBA book? I hope the hell not. Why can't we apply the same philosophy to baseball and leave the pro book to the professionals? Most of these local leagues apply FED philosophies such as the slide/avoid contact rules, sportsmanship guidelines, substitutions, etc. to the pro rules that the game would be better called using FED, instead of having layers and layers of rules superceding sections of the OBR. When was the last time anyone applied OBR 3.09 in an amateur game?

There's no need to write amateur rules because they already exist as FED. Maybe if we start convincing these local leagues to adopt FED rules, we can get more consistency on our officiating.

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?

No matter how hard we try to get everyone on the same page, people are always going to disagree on something. The key is to agree on those people whose opinions on this board carries more weight, whether it be Carl, Garth, Warren, etc. And why should we accept their opinions? It's because they've established credibility by having their works published. Hell, Carl's written a freakin' book devoted to the differences in rules and practices between the 3 books, so if Carl says such-and-such, his words alone should be enough. That, at least, should hold true on the Internet. Now, Smitty the UIC ain't gonna give a rat's ass what Carl Willson or Warren Childress said, or what the NAPBL rules, or even what a well-respected EWS member had to say about the (il)legality of changing a judgement call. If that's the case, then I guess you pretty much have to do what Smitty says if you want to get those quality rec games. For those of us who want to advance in our officiating careers, we'd be better off bringing the official interpretations and authoritative opinions onto the field and leaving our own opinions in the parking lot.

Just my $0.02,
Dennis