[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

While I find the "sidebar" regarding Jim Evans' authority as interesting as Garth seemed to find my recent "Constitutional excursion" on another thread, my mind is pretty much made up on that question, and I have no interest in wasting my time trying to otherwise convince anyone who doesn't already understand that Mr. Evans has most likely forgotten more about the rules than most of us will ever know. (Never met the man. My loss, not his.)

However, I did find Garth and Dave H.'s discussion on the concept of "delayed dead ball" of interest. Here is how I think of it.

Under the OBR rules, a delayed dead ball is a "useful fiction". Under the rules, the ball is either live or dead during a game. Some of the rules dictate that certain events MAY eventually result in the ball becoming dead, depending on what happens following the event (balks, Type B Obstruction, and Catcher's Interference come to mind). In some cases, the ball subsequently becomes dead because of the COMBINATION of the initial event and the subsequent action. In other cases, the ball does NOT become dead because the following action results in the initial infraction being "disregarded" - as if it had never happened.

I have found that when first explaining something to someone, it is sometimes a better teaching technique to say something that may be "technically" false (e.g., "the ball is "delayed dead" in the following cases...") in order to help the neophyte grasp a basic concept or principle, rather than trying to introduce all the subtle nuances and exceptions when first explaining a concept or principle. Once the basic concept has been understood, it is easier for the learner to understand the unusual exceptions and, perhaps, more technically precise way of expressing the concept.

Likewise, as one learns more about a concept, his understanding and expression of the concept may evolve to a more correct or sophisticated way of thinking or talking about it. It doesn't mean the the earlier understanding was wrong, per se, but possibly not as correct or complete. Personally, I would doubt that Jim Evans' study or understanding of the rules ceased to develop with the publication of the JEA.

Then again, maybe this is all just some pointless blathering by a clueless coach.

JM