Tim:
Let me put this on the record- I have the highest regard for Jim Evans & his interpretive expertise.
My "day job" makes me quite accustomed to finding, evaluating, relying upon and distinguishing various types of authority, precedent, and evidence.
All other things being equal, I believe I would be most likely to agree with his interpretation, where [if] he and J/R conflict.
The principal inequality that exists at present, is that, while Evans' work is unavailable to me, Roeder's is readily accessible, sitting on my desktop as I write.
When someone offers to demonstrate Jim Evans "making reference" to a sitch, I have a couple problems accepting the authority. The first is that I am unable to go read the citation myself. And what comes before and after it. Context is everything. As the current FED boo-boo demonstrates, it is possible to "make reference" to BRFAF and be, not authoritative, but only sloppy/ careless.
The second is that I am wholy dependent upon the accuracy and veracity of the citing individual. Casting no aspersions on anyone posting in this thread, but we have certainly noticed that there are those posting on various umpiring boards who are not above mis-stating a reference to support their point.
Thus, until Jim Evans publishes a version of his JEA for the unwashed masses, the J/R is, for most of us, THE premier available authority for OBR rules interpretation. Here's hoping that the recently-floated possibility of a "mass-market" JEA [at whatever price
] becomes a reality in the near future.