[GarthB]

Tim:

You are trying to get me to do that which I am trying so hard to avoid.

Any comparison of those whom you list as "informed opinion" will serve only to start a pissing contest. It matters not my personal opinion of Porter, Freix, Booth, Booth, Willson, Osborne, Taylor, et al.

A problem in judging their fitness for our needs lies in what you mean as Informed opinion. Informed implies that they get much of their opinion from the thoughts of others. Who then are these others? Do we not have to consider their sources when we decide what we will take from their opinions?

Additionally, I give added credibility to my perception of why some of the folks do what they do. Several, the more original thinkers, usually, I believe are trying to further the activity. Some others, on the other hand have fallen victim to believing their own press clippings. I give additional weight to those in the first group.

So yes, I do give varying degrees of weight to the names on your and my lists…everything from near zero to 90 on a hundred scale. But again, I don't think it serves any positive purpose to identify who gets what.

Now to your other questions:

Do you agree that Evans, Roder and Childress are "authoritative opinions"?

Do any of the three carry more weight with you than the others?

Yes, I agree that Roder, Evans and Childress should be considered as having authoritative opinion; and in my cafeteria style of researching interpretations each one could prove to be more beneficial than the others from time to time depending on the subject matter and the reason for the research.

While I don't remember Jon Bible commenting on rules issues I do respect him greatly, dose that mean he knows more about OBR than Warren Willson?

Jon Bible, before becoming the previous NCAA UIC worked as a pro for several years. In some instances his take, particularly in the application of a rule, in my cafeteria, would be more of more practical significance than that of Warrens.

I also recognize Peter O. as an important "source" . . . I do not list him as an "informed source" as to rulings, so does Peter know more about rules than Jim Porter?

Osborne, who elicits great emotion from many people and that, unfortunately has lead to a diminished influence, also should be respected from the practical standpoint, more so than some others you have listed.

So if you have two sources that disagree on a certain play (Example that I pick out of thin air - one source says that after a pitched ball bounces and is foul tipped that it can be legally caught just as any other foul tip and the other camp says that once the ball bounces it is no longer in flight and cannot be caught and is therefore always a foul ball) how do we find the "correct" answer?

In this particular example, what makes it even more vexing is that we have Jim Evans, a former pro umpire and umpire trainer extraordinaire on one side (along with a black and white reading of the rule book) and Rick Roder, who is currently evaluating pro umpires, and who has cited that he has the agreement of "several" working pro-umpires, on the other side.

First we need to bear in mind that despite appearance to the contrary, the rules of baseball are not stagnant. Even when no literal change has been made, we find at times that a practical change has been made. As in other arenas, practice often precedes "authorized" change. That's not to say that is what is happening here, but it might.

Certainly history and a verbatim reading of the rulebook favor Evans. Modern practice at the ML level MAY favor Roder.

After having deliberated on this a great deal and reading the opinions of many, many umpires whom I respect. I find it more consistent with my cafeteria plus logical thought formula to accept Evans' view, particularly at the amateur level, where, quite often, the game is a bit more "pure."

Roder may well win out at the pro level, but at 50 + years, my chances of being called up to the pros are slightly below those of the Army taking me back. I'll go with Evans.

And finally:

"Why is the history of a rule important to the most current interpretation?"

As, I stated before, the rules of baseball are not stagnant. They do evolve, usually slowly, but a times abruptly. The history of rules in practice, especially during the changes, gives us our best idea of the intent of the rules makers.

Despite Jim Evans' comments in the JEA wherein he attributes intent to the rules makers, I can find no direct written material in which the rules makers actually state their intent. We divine this by the reviewing the practice of the art of umpiring, or rule enforcement over time. (History)

Thus the history of the rule and its application, even if a change in philosophy has taken place, will lead us to where we are today and to a correct call, unless of course we determine that we are the ones to begin the process of change. I personally don't see myself in the light.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 04:30 PM]