[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Steve,

Where do you work that the NAPBL Manual has been declared, "official"? Are you a Minor League umpire and didn't tell us about it?

The fact is, the NAPBL Manual has not been declared official for any amateur league that I am aware of. It has traditionally been the place where umpires go first to find answers to common OBR problems and interpretations. But as far as "official" goes, it ain't that.

NAPBL Manual is authoritative in amateur baseball - - just like Jim Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated and Jaksa/Roder's book.

So, why is it you will accept what the NAPBL Manual has to say, but you dismiss Jim Evans?

Jim, I have to disagree here. The assertion that the NAPBL is "official" has been made by both Carl and me, among others. Since the NAPBL is one of the three bodies (now two) for whom the rules were written, any interpretation by them is rightly considered "official" for those rules. Their interpretations are the contemporary equivalent of the casebook comments, and have the same force. In fact, I also consider those sections of JEA that report the "Professional Interpretation" are also "official" in respect of MLB baseball. They may only be authoritative in Minor League baseball, and amateur baseball if the league subscribes to that. NAPBL overrules JEA in NAPBL leagues. JEA Pro interpretations and the Pro Instructions to Umpires would overrule NAPBL in MLB.

My answer to Bfair's question is that you have to review ALL of the sources that effect any given rule and that are accepted by your league. Basic OBR is modified by NAPBL officially, and may also be modified by JEA Professional Interpretations if your league approves that. J/R is only authoritative anywhere, because it's a training manual and does not simply report official interpretations but in some cases actually makes its own interpretations without drawing any clear distinction between the two, as indicated in an email to Carl by Mike Fitzpatrick of the PBUC and hinted at by Cris Jones of the PBUC. Either way, understanding the history and tradition of a rule from JEA and J/R is also important to being able to read the Basic OBR the way the rule makers originally intended. It is also important to help the umpire understand which rules are no longer strictly relevant in modern baseball, are no longer enforced for some reason or have been superceded by later rules, etc.

OTOH, I can certainly agree that NAPBL might only be considered authoritative in certain specific leagues. That's usually because those leagues truly don't realise what the NAPBL represents. In general terms, however, NAPBL should be considered as providing "official" interpretations of professional rules, unless directed otherwise by your league.

Also, have you considered the fact that Jim Evans owns a professional umpire's school whose graduates have been assigned to leagues under the direct jurisdiction of the NAPBL Manual? Wouldn't it be counterproductive for Jim Evans to teach something that is contrary to the NAPBL Manual? Of course it would!

A wonderful prize for anyone who can truly convince me that any direct contradiction exists between JEA and NAPBL.

The objective of JEAPU is to produce officials for MLB baseball. The leagues of the NAPBL are only a stepping stone in that direction. Sure the two are professional leagues operating largely under the same rules. However, there are times when the two differ. The recent meeting of AAA officials in Phoenix Arizona highlighted that there are differences that have to be dealt with by officials in transition from one to the other.

A specific example of a difference is that NAPBL allows a 4th out appeal on the same runner at the same base after oversliding and being tagged out in a force situation. That is NOT the case at the MLB level, at least not yet as far as we can know. The Bremigan interpretation on removing the force is applicable in MLB but NOT in NAPBL leagues. There are certainly others, else why give MLU's their own special written Instructions. Whether this difference is highlighted by JEA is another matter. There are many confusing issues that are simply not dealt with in JEA, because it was intended for publication to the masses. That makes it less useful in those cases.

I hate to disagree with you, Jim, because most times when I do that I spend a worrying period waiting for you to prove me wrong. (grin) This time I don't think I'll be too worried, though. The rules are pro, the interps are pro, therefore the interps are official for pro. Whether they are accepted by individual amateur organisations and leagues is a whole other question. I know they are accepted by LL Inc, because Jim Booth has a letter to that effect. As for PONY, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, MSBL and all the other flavours of amateur baseball, who knows.

Cheers,