[GarthB]

Originally posted by Bfair

As a voice from the past I'll say.................
this entire issue brings to mind Carl's past interpretation that Fed required arm motion as part of a feint to 3B during the 3-1 pickoff play (ref. 2002 BRD Section 353) while OBR and NCAA did not . This interpretation was significantly argued between Carl, myself, and others. Still, I don't recall The BRD's old, incorrect ruling as noting that it was merely Carl's interpretation of the rule (perhaps I missed something in my BRD issue). Of course the Fed has now directly addressed that issue and Carl has, of course, now corrected HIS interpretation within The BRD to coincide with the correct interpretation.

I also note that the 2003 BRD, section 353 indicated that under NCAA rules it is legal for a pitcher to feint to a base from the pitching plate without a need to first step there. While I note that Carl has not indicated this to be HIS interpretation, I find this interpretation to be in disagreement with NCAA rule 9-3c which specifically states:

The pitcher, while touching the pitcher’s rubber, must step toward
the base, preceding or simultaneous with any move toward that
base. [my emphasis]

I don’t know if Carl has made any corrections to his later BRD’s, but I will note that I’ve pointed out this inconsistency in interpretation many times to Carl with his failure to even to care to address the question of the inconsistency.

Since I've been off the board for awhile I won't fail to add that The BRD is certainly one the best values for any umpire to add to his library. However, be careful in accepting all of its interpretations without question. When something seems unusual, use The BRD’s rules references to specifically read those rules to assure the interpretation shown agrees with the written rule. If it seems not to, look for an interpretation reference supporting The BRD’s indicated ruling. If not shown, assume it may be mere author interpretation---and quite possibly incorrect. Carl was proven wrong many times in our past arguments.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Steve:

Long time!

If I remember correctly, when you and Carl were discussing the 3-1 move requirements, The word "interpretation" was used quite freely.

In this recent discussion, Carl has stated that he has not given an interpretation, rather he has "illustrated what the language means." His exact words were:

"Example: Able should bat but Baker bats and singles. Before a pitch, the defense appeals that Baker was an improper batter.

NOW, if I include that in the BRD, with a ruling, am I making an interpretation?

No: I'm illustrating what the language means. Well, at least, that's what I think I'm doing."


I was not sure what that meant, but when I pursued an explanation, Carl cut off communications. He accused me of being insincere in pursing knowledge of FED. However, I thought I had made it clear that was I was attempting was a pursuit of knowledge of the BRD.

He suggested that had I read the introduction to the BRD I would have understood what he was doing with play 14-20.

I read the introduction and no where does could I find a reference to "illustrating what the language means." Neither could I find any statement giving guidance as to how to accept or consider the plays listed, other than when they are accompanied by a filled in black square "the material applies to all levels."

The play in question appears to give a ruling. But the ruling is not from FED. Carl has said, I believe, that FED has not issued a ruling. I could only surmise then, that it came from Carl. I don't think Carl has disagreed with that exactly, but rather he explained that his ruling was, as I said before, an illustration of language and thus not an interpretation.

Like you, I think the BRD is an indenspenable umpire tool. I would just like to understand it better should I need to rely not just on the differences in rule wording, but also any of the "rulings" or "interpretations" or "illustrations of language."

Several posters at this board have in the past referred to these plays as interpetations and Carl never jumped in to disagree with that label; until now, that is, when I referred to his ruling as an intepretation.

I guess, absent of any further explanation by the author, it would be best to consider plays and rulings such as 14-20 as "possible, yet unofficial interpretations"