Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
J/R is authoritative opnion, with a concession that it is official for no league. And that's my take on that.
|
Jim:
The J/R is official for no league that you and I know of.
Anyway, you've put the issue very well. What I've discovered is this: Nearly everyone who bad mouths the J/R has strong ties to
the competing American League umpire school, the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring. In other words, the anti-J/R group's feelings are based not on fact but on jealousy. And I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. I'm jealous of Tim Tschida.
After all, the Brinkman school is one of the original umpire schools, dating back into the 1930s. As such, the instructors and students always considered themselves superior. That feeling seemed to insinuate itself into the attitude of the graduates of JEAPU, for they were the "little, new" kid on the block. They didn't even meet their classes in Florida, which is where
everybody goes to be an umpire. I remember reading the stats from those early days in Arizona. Of course, the rivalry was intense.
Jim eventually bought out the Brinkman-Froemming school. But lingering still is that inescapble feeling of inferiority (because they came late to the party) of JEAPU grads.
It's certainly not justified, but when did logic get in the way of emotions?
The fact is that hundreds of professional umpires studied under the system created by Nick Bremigan and enhanced by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder. Many of those students are in the major leagues, as you pointed out.
It is worse than ignorant to argue that J/R is not
authoritative opinion; it's silly. And it certainly brings into question both the sincerity and the knowledge of the ones making that argument. Fact is, Jaksa/Roder are no less authoritative than Jim Evans, who offers his own opinion often in the JEA. It's authoritative but only that.
An authority, after all, is one whose "opinion" on a given subject is entitled to receive more weight than an ordinary "civilian." One becomes an authority by virtue of his education, training, experience, publications, and position
in the area of discussion.
Let me give an illustration.
There's a rookie here at the Forum (Greg) who's just learning umpiring. There's a GV (grizzled veteran) named Steve. I post here. Often, umpires quote J/R here. Sometimes someone will offer a passage from the JEA. I've quoted the rulings of Mike Fitzpatrick. You can see the hierarchy of "authoritative opinion" simply by ranking those entities.
Let's posit an issue: batter interference. Such and such happens, and the question is: Is that interference? There can be no certain answer. Issues of obstruction, interference, balks, etc., are rarely black and white.
Greg's answer is not authoritative
EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE RIGHT. That is, we might listen to his position, but we wouldn't feel obligated to accept it simply because his name is attached to it. Some readers would dismiss his opinion (improperly) simply
because he is a beginner.
The same is true for Steve's answer. The only difference between Greg and Steve is this: If we take 15 issues, the veteran will be right more often that the rookie. But those opinions are not, as far as anyone can tell, authoritative, for he lacks the credentials that might elevate his "ruling" to that level of expertise.
An answer by Carl Childress is "authoritative"
EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE WRONG. I have credentials spanning nearly a half century. I have spent more than a quarter century placing my opinions and "rulings" out in public for everyone to see and dissect. The evidence is clear that most umpires who read my material agree I know what I'm talking about,
EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T AGREE with what I say.
The same is true for Jaksa/Roder. On an OBR issue their opinion is entitled to more weight than mine: They reached AAA baseball, and they trained major league umpires. They are at a disadvantage, however, because they write only about the OBR and -- more importantly -- they no longer write at all. Each year that passes dates some portion of the J/R though their basic structure is unlikely ever to become obsolete.
Opinions from the JEA are also "authoritative." For example, the plays and rulings are simply the opinions of Jim Evans. They illustrate how HE thinks rules should be enforced or interpreted. For the OBR vĂ*s a vĂ*s J/R, his opinion is more authoritative simply because he made "The Show." Of course, he does offer "official interpretations," but they are always clearly labeled. The fallacy is that umpires quote Jim's opinion
as if it was official. The only official statements in the JEA are to be found in the section titled Professional Interpretation.
The Director of the PBUC, Mike Fitzpatrick, would be considered an authority by virtue of his position alone. But when he answers a baseball question, that answer is NOT authoritative. It's the
official position of the organization that controls all of the minor league umpires who work in the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, which is about 90% of the total of all pro umpires.
Finally, exactly what is the benefit of "authoritative opinion"?
It's evidence, of course. Every court in the land accepts it. In criminal trials the prosecution's authorities and the defense's authorities go head to head, which only proves that someone's authoritative opinion may not always be right. We all know what happens when two umpires make opposite calls on the same play.
Mainly, though, when we read an authority, we have a feeling of confidence: What he says is LIKELY to be right. Therefore, we can use what he says in our own games with the assurance that we won't look like fools.
WE MIGHT BE WRONG, but we'll be wrong confidently.