Official Interpretations ???

[Bfair]

Regarding my question of how the umpiring community is made aware of "official interpretations" :

Dave Hensley (quoted):
"...to answer your question, I am aware of two, and only two, sources of "current" PBUC interpretations. They are (1) Jim Booth, moderator of the umpire discussion boards at eteamz.com, and (2) Carl Childress, author of Baseball Rule Differences and baseball editor at eumpire.com. Both of these individuals have established working agreements with PBUC officials to submit case plays and receive PBUC rulings.

I do not know of their being "published" in any manner other than they're being passed along by the facilitators, Mr. Booth and Mr. Childress, in those individuals' respective venues (eteamz for Booth, BRD and eumpire.com for Childress.)

Imperfect as this process may be, it's still better than what we had before, which was nuttin, honey

First, Dave, I would like to thank you for providing an answer to my question. Isn't it amazing how we on the boards, who are so few compared to the numbers of umpires out in the field, can discuss "official interpretations"---and even then, critique one another based upon that. That probably puts us in the upper 1% of officials regarding current knowledge. That means 99% would still be officiating according to the rulebook, NAPBL, JEA, J/R or whatever best published data they may depend on. Should we require or demand published data in order for interpretations to become official?

I wish not to question the accuracy and integrity of Jim or Carl as there is no reason to do so. However, a system exists whereby we say we should officiate and accept these rulings and interpretations as "official", yet there is no "official" means of conveying this information to the general officiating community. Are Carl and Jim even considered "official"? In other words, is what they deliver possibly only opinion of PBUC? What makes the interpretation "official"?

Somehow, when someone tells me I should go by the "official interpretation" and be in that 1%, I have to question if I shouldn't be in the remaining 99% of umpires until an "official" interpretation is published. What occurred before the days of Jim and Carl? Where did officials get there info back then?

Now, we can see the fallacy in the "system" of providing official interpretation to the umpiring community, let's talk about the level differentials. Even Carl listed in one of his lists the need to have variances in "official interpretation" between Pro and amateur. Why do we keep trying to apply PBUC interpretation to amateur? Why not get someone like Carl and Jim to tie their influence together with ABUA and develop something that can better service the entire amateur officiating community? Approach the major amateur leagues, get their input, and get "official".

I think that would be appreciated greatly by the majority of amateur umpires in the field. Perhaps talking "official" and being "official" are really 2 different things.

I confess that I feel these stated weaknesses are far beyond the trivialities I have seen debated around the boards for months. Perhaps we have been discussing treatment of the symptoms all along instead of attacking the problem. Can anything be done to improve such major shortcomings faced by amateur umpires?

Just a thought,

Steve
Member
EWS

[PeteBooth]

Steve, I might get blasted for this (but what else is new), there is a reason the rule-makers put in 9.01(c). No matter how the book is re-written there will inevitably be something that is missed or still "grey in nature" , hence the need for 9.01(c). I know most knowledgable umpires do not like to simply rely on 9.01(c) as a basis for ruling but that EXPLICIT WORDING is in the rule-book.

Some of the authoritative opinion as you mentioned, NAPBL, JEA, J/R are someone's opinion and not "law" otherwise it would be in the rule-book. Don't get me wrong, these individuals have a tremendous amount of knowledge about baseball, but on some issues even they disagree among themselves in its application.

Also, let's face it most of the time when authoritative opinion is quoted in many a thread it is when we are discussing those Wierd Plays which hardly if ever actually happen.

Haven't seen or heard of many PRO Protests, so I do not know their exact heirachy as to what source they use.

FED is a little more clearer since they have their case book
analysis which is very helpful, but OBR does not have a case book but authoritative opinion.

The real problem I have with authoritative opinion is they are strictly dealing with PRO Interpretations and not necesaarily with Amateur Interpretations. I do not thin J/R Evans, etc. had 9 / 10 yr. old rugrats in mind when interpreting the rule book. It's strictly for the PRO game which we all know is a Different Ballgame (No Pun intended)

I do not have all of the authorutative opinion books. I am having enough trouble going through and understanding Papa C's BRD which I recently purchased (BTW I find it very useful). I also have the NAPBL. There are many books out there, but the question are they "law" still remains.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Pete, we seem to bicker over such "official interpretation" that reach us through such "unofficial" means. Even once it arrives, discussions may develop as to whether this is appropriate for the amateur game vs. Pro.

Can anything be done to improve the "system"? To allow a greater number of officials out in the field to be aware of the changes that have and continue to occur?

Steve
Member
EWS