Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
I s'pose this debate is all about one's definition of, "official." I take it to mean that a particular league has specifically sanctioned the use of that manual to train their umpires and/or settle protest disputes. I know of no amateur league which has specifically declared the NAPBL Manual (now the PBUC Manual,) official.
If you are saying that the NAPBL is official in the sense that it provides rulings which are considered official in professional leagues, and since it's their rulebook, what they say goes - - I can understand that.
|
You are correct about the pivotal point of the debate, Jim.
I am saying that the OBR is written by and for the MLB and NAPBL professional leagues. It says so right there in the Forward to the rules. If either of them makes an interpretation of the OBR, then that interpretation
ipso facto becomes an integral part of their OBR. Where NAPBL interprets specifically for it's minor leagues, and JEA reports a different interpretation made specifically for MLB, then we need to have our local league arbitrate which way to go. However where the two sources agree, as they do the majority of the time, then I believe that interpretation is the equivalent of a casebook note or comment printed in the OBR itself.
We all know that casebook comments were deliberately included to form a part of, and have the same force as, the rules themselves. If there is any doubt of that, here is the IMPORTANT NOTE which comes after the Forward to the
Official Baseball Rules:
"
IMPORTANT NOTE
The Official Playing Rules Committee at its December 1977 meeting, voted to incorporate the Notes Case Book Comments section directly into the Official Playing Rules at the appropriate places. Basically, the Case Book interprets or elaborates on the basic rules and in essence have the same effect as rules when applied to particular sections for which they are intended.
This arrangement is designed to give quicker access to any written language pertaining to an Official Rule and does not require a reader to refer to different sections of the Official Playing Rules book in considering the application of a particular rule.
Case Book material is printed in smaller type than the rule language."
I'm saying that these "official" interpretations are the contemporary equivalent of the case book notes and comments. If your league says "
We accept OBR" (warts and all) then, by extension, they have automatically accepted the professional interpretations from these two sources as "official" too, IMHO.
Now, I think that's closer to your second paragraph above than to the first, so I'd say we aren't too far from an actual agreement on this question. I think we are probably talking about two sides of the same coin. I say the league doesn't have to formally accept the NAPBL or JEA, if they say they go strictly by OBR. OTOH, if they say "
we go by our own rules which are based on OBR", THEN I agree that they would also have to say "
and we accept/reject NAPBL or JEA interpretations of our OBR-based rules" before you could call them "official" for that league.
I am conscious, for example, that while LL Inc appears to use strict OBR that in fact they may simply use OBR as the basis for
their own rules. They have deliberately left out the casebook comments in certain cases, for example, which are crucial to a complete understanding of certain rules. They accept some rules, reject others and add the occasional rule of their own. That's not what I call going by OBR. That's using OBR as a basis for your
own rules. There is no rule 7.13 in OBR. That's why I agree that LL Inc., specifically, needs to confirm that they accept NAPBL or JEA interpretations. The same
may not be true for PONY, but equally it
may be too. I just don't know from way down here. Am I making sense with this?
Quote:
What the NAPBL and JEA tell us is golden. When it does not conflict with your league's rules, those books should be every umpire's guiding force. Without them we are left to sort through the OBR as is, which is an impossible task even for Bfair. That would lead to tens of thousands of different rulings from millions of umpires. That should be avoided at all costs.
|
Agreed. I never suspected that you were suggesting otherwise. Bfair's famous catchcry is "consistency". Well, consistency is best served by having an agreed set of interpretations accepted as "official" in your league. In some cases that requires a positive affirmation (your definition of "official"), as in the case of LL Inc. In other cases, it may be presumed from the declaration that the league follows the strict OBR (my definition of implied "official"). Either way, every arbiter in any given league must accept the "official" league line in interpretation, rather than saying "
We'll I'm doing it my way until you prove otherwise to me". I'm reasonably sure I've "heard" Bfair "utter" words to that effect more than once.
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 04:59 AM]