|
The list of "informed opinions" (of which Tee so politely included me) is relatively meaningless. I would certainly include Bob Pariseau and Bob Jenkins atop the list and add to it Dave Hensley, Jim Mills, and Garth. Although Tony Peters is highly knowledgeable and respected, he doesn't post openly on the boards, yet many would benefit if he would choose to do so. Jon Bible demands respect merely by his personal knowledge and achievment, and he never fails to lose that respect by always answering in a gracious and helpful manner.
As Garth mentioned, this group brings to the table for the most part the citings of the other authoritative sources related to direct rule interpretation. Yet the discussions include that which is not printed black and white in the rulebooks---and that's handling situations and, at times, overlooking minor infractions for the levels we call. And while in our discussions we may have located issues not specifically addressed by the rules, it's still well understood that our opinions carry little weight in determining any official ruling. After receiving rulings from elsewhere, we then find that at times we were on the right side of the issue, and at other times that we were on the wrong side.
Because the PBUC rulings represent rulings from an official professional organization, I accept their rulings at this time as official interpretation. J/R, JEA, Roder, Evans, and WUA are merely authoritative opinion. Not surprising to most who know me, I'd not include Childress in the list of authoritative opinions. While he may be good at writing books and getting them published, there have been many errors of author self-interpretation within The BRD. IMO, he is far better at reporting rulings than he is at making them. As I've stated before, I have a considerable list of over 20 unaddressed issues over the past couple years for which rulings were obtained by NCAA, FED, PBUC, and MLB.com that have proven Childress wrong. His numerous and continued "misses" have proven to me not to look to him for interpretation, but merely as a reporter of what others interpret. IMO, he fits better atop the group of "informed opinions."
With the advent of the available rulings over the internet by MLB.com and the WUA, it makes it easy for us to obtain authoritative opinion from high level authorities. Roder, the respondent for WUA, has indicated that at least on his more controversial issues he polls MLB umpires and administrators, including the likes of Tom Lepperd and/or Ralph Nelson. It makes it relatively easy to obtain highly authoritative opinion for anyone---something that Childress seemingly once monopolized and aided him in his publications.
When no official interpretation exists, I look to the authoritative opinions to see if the issue is addressed. If addressed by only one, I accept it. If addressed differently by several, I accept that which seems most logical to me in application for the level I officiate.
Just my opinion,
Freix
BTW, add Tee to the list, but be careful of his IIITBTSB syndrome............
[Edited by Bfair on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 06:39 PM]
|