I would like to answer a few questions regarding the BRD.

1. “Probably the interpretations Carl reports are just ‘opinion’ of the PBUC and not official interpretations.”

ANSWER: They are, indeed, opinions, official opinions of the field supervisor, evaluators, and staff of minor league baseball. They apply with great force in professional baseball and with equal force in those leagues where the PBUC umpire manual is used. (The NAPBL manual is no more, having been replaced by the newer model.)

2. “Why would they give the interpretations to Carl and not the rest of us?”

ANSWER: As someone pointed out, for a time Jim Booth at <font color=red>e</font>teamz received direct interpretations from Cris Jones of the PBUC. Booth lamented recently that no one now replies to his messages. I know from published emails that Jim spent time “debating” the interpretations he received. When his perception of the situation differed from their reply, he always fired back an alternative view. That’s not what I do with the BRD. Each day the PBUC gets hundreds of emails asking for interpretations. Most of those can be answered directly from the OBR or the published umpire’s manual. The staff have many, many more important duties to perform than answering the questions of umpires of amateur games. They do not think “amateur” baseball. For example, the average turnaround for one of my questions is about four weeks! Morever, suppose Mike Fitzpatrick did give an interpretation to an “unknown commodity.” How can he be sure it will be reported correctly? How does he know <i>where</i> it will be reported? On the other hand, the BRD is well-known. For 15 years I have been reporting first BUD and then PBUC interpretations without prejudice, regardless of my own opinion. They know I report what they say. Two recent rulings illustrate that: They overturned the 1976 Bremigan ruling about removing a force. They overturned the 1986 Brinkman ruling about a ball passing an infielder. I don’t agree with either decision. That will not affect how I report their rulings.

3. “How come the BRD gets so many interpretations that don’t appear elsewhere?”

ANSWER: Many of the points not covered that I ask about would come up once a generation in a professional game. As I’ve said repeatedly, umpires of amateur games have to be far better at the rules than the professional umpire. He gets obstruction once every lustrum; we get it perhaps once a season. The BRD is a convenient and trustworthy repository for those interpretations that have been made, essentially, for amateur leagues.

4. “What about the NCAA and FED? Where do those interpretations come from?”

ANSWER: The NCAA relationship goes back even farther than that of the BUD, back to Don Edwards in the first edition (1981-82). After that came Bill Thurston, who was always willing to provide an official interpretation. Since I authored scores of NCAA rules, most of which were adopted and all of which were designed to harmonize NCAA with OBR, Thurston became quite comfortable dealing with the BRD. Just this last week by email and telephone, Rich Fetchiet assured me that though the Thurston era was over, the “era of good feeling” was not. The BRD would continue to get official interpretations from the NCAA. As most know, the NHFS does not offer official interpretations to individuals, only state organizations. But they publish their new interps in the Quarterly and on the Internet, so that’s no problem.

5. “How can Childress quote the General Instructions (GI) in the BRD and yet denigrate them here on the Forum?”

ANSWER: I’m sure that every poll of coaches will show their number one buzz word is “consistency.” The aim of the BRD is to achieve that insofar as is possible. Umpires have four ways to handle “points not covered”: (1) precedent; (2) analogy; (3) authoritative opinion; (4) official interpretation. An umpire who knows how a top dog in his association treated a given play can apply that ruling in his game and — consistency. If something happens in your fED game and you can’t find a rule, use one from another book (analogy). At least you have some written documentation somewhere to bring to your defense. Authoritative opinion and official interpretations speak for themselves. The BRD has official interpretations from Rumble, Thurston, Deary, Jones, Fitzpatrick, the PBUC minor league staff, and the Instructions to the National League umpries. It includes materials from the FED and OBR case books. You’ll find authoritative opinion from McNeely, Bremigan, Brinkman, Jaksa, Roder, Evans, Wendelstedt, and Winters. You’ll even find two references to the “General Instructions.”

I find it interesting that someone will argue the GI “requires” them to get the call correct and yet would, I know, argue that the umpire should not take his rule book onto the field. It is again the fact that the message I bring in the BRD is not the problem; it’s simply the fact that I bring it.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 18th, 2001 at 09:31 PM]

I apologize for a post in a different thread questioning your "official" nature. I posted that prior to seeing this thread.

Carl, you start out stating that your BRD has "opinions" of certain porfessionally related authorities, yet near the end of of your post you reference these as "official interpretations". Which is correct?

The importance being that if a baseball official is to waiver from something specifically stated in the book, should it not be "official interpretation" that causes him to do so? This is not to undermine the importance of authoritative opinion in areas where "clarification" is necessary as opposed to "different than". Although the General Instructions may not be part of the rules themselves, they are part of the book. I have yet to see a book without them---maybe it exists, I don't know. Regardless, since we are only a small minority getting these "changes" of interpretation and/or opinion, the large majority is officiating to the wrong information. Is that not correct? Should it not be only "official interpretation" that can countermand that which is published in the rulebook and used by the large majority of umpires in the field?

We also need to recognize the broad majority of baseball played is amateur and not professional, yet we continue to accept and apply interpretations and opinions directed from and specifically for the professional level. Can you see the problem? No wonder there are inconsistencies on the diamonds. Am I supposed to take pride in enforcing an interpretation that is different than that which is in the rulebook, different than that which the coaches have seen published, and different than that which even my partner(s) may be aware of? Of course, I can tell them "I am right and current. I got it off the internet!" Can you see the problem?

Are we wrong in questioning this system? You have significant influence within the game itself. You have earned that influence. Can you think of any better way to improve the game than spearheading a move toward a universal set of rules geared toward amateur baseball---even if those rules have various exceptions for age differences? BTW, I will buy the new amateur rulebook, casebook, and another BRD---to make your efforts worthwhile.

All the fuss that occurs is no different than different religions arguing the Bible. Their are varying views and interpretations in the many gray areas. People accept what best suits there needs. Some practice the philosophy of verbatim. Others practice the philosophy of intent and neo-romanticism, and others a mix of both to suit there own needs. Can you see the problem?

Most importantly, to question an imperfect system is not wrong, Carl. <u>And to disagree</u> with those who state or imply you are wrong in questioning it---------------well, that's not wrong either. I am not in Pleasantville and I have no intent in moving there (unless of course I consider running for Mayor).

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

Perhaps Carl might say the same, but your idea here has already been implemented by the NFHS. That's right, FED rules. However, I don't really think the game was improved just because of FED rules, nor are FED umpires (vs. OBR umpires) any better or worse than OBR umpires. The FED book, while better written to accomplish what it intends, is no more comprehensive than the OBR. It is the "points not covered", not the "points confused" that is the biggest problem you want to remedy. Yes, we could attempt to do so by introducing a third book to the umpire's canon, the ABR as you seem to want to call it, but I'm not nuts about that idea.
I am a Christian, and I have often made the same analogy in my mind. Interpreting the Bible does seem a lot like interpreting the OBR. However, there are a few important differences. The Bible is the inspired word of God; the OBR is the assembled bumblings of rules comittees. The Bible contains much figurative language; the OBR isn't supposed to. And lastly, the nature of God is of eternal and overwhelming significance; baseball is a kid's game.

Therefore, we must have vastly different standards, though perhaps we have a similar goal. When interpreting the Bible, I am willing to admit as possible anyone else's interpretation, as long as it does not deny that Jesus is the Messiah who reedeemed mankind in God's eyes. I do this because the goal is not to "be right" but to love, serve, and fellowship with anyone who says they love Christ. In interpreting the OBR, I am willing to admit and <b>immediately practice</b> a consensus interpretation, because the goal is not to "be right" but to acheive a level of consitency in the league, so that the participants know what to expect. However, in either discipline, it is good to argue as long as the argument remains friendly and constructive and occurs in a suitable time and place.

P-Sz

Look at it this way -- the entire rulebook is one man's or group's opinion on how the game should be played. The U.S. Constitutuion is one group's opinion on how the nation should be governed. It's because of the positions these groups are in that gives their opinions more weight than yours or mine. Jim Evans might give his opinion on a ruling, but if Bud Selig gave a different opinion of the same situation, guess which one would be treated as "official?"

Quote:

We also need to recognize the broad majority of baseball played is amateur and not professional, yet we continue to accept and apply interpretations and opinions directed from and specifically for the professional level. Can you see the problem? No wonder there are inconsistencies on the diamonds. Am I supposed to take pride in enforcing an interpretation that is different than that which is in the rulebook, different than that which the coaches have seen published, and different than that which even my partner(s) may be aware of? Of course, I can tell them "I am right and current. I got it off the internet!" Can you see the problem?

I'll probably never convince the UIC in my local youth league that the hands are never part of the bat, but because the rulebook never specifically states that he'll never believe me. Hell, even if it did say that in the BRD, NAPBL, JEA, or other source he still wouldn't buy it because it's not in the book that counts.

In my 12 years of umpiring I have never heard any mention of any other source of rulings, whether "official" or "authoritative opinion." Most believe that if it ain't in the book, it's up to individual interpretation. One time I asked my supervisor, a man I still respect to this day, if on a caught fly ball a runner is required to retouch a base if he left early. He "ruled" that the runner was not required, but after reading other sources I know this not to be true.

Quote:

Are we wrong in questioning this system? You have significant influence within the game itself. You have earned that influence. Can you think of any better way to improve the game than spearheading a move toward a universal set of rules geared toward amateur baseball---even if those rules have various exceptions for age differences? BTW, I will buy the new amateur rulebook, casebook, and another BRD---to make your efforts worthwhile.

I've ruled under the OBR throughout my entire officiating career. This year will mark the first I'll call FED ball. And what do they hand out to both umpires and coaches at these rules clinics? A rule book, case book, and umpire manual. All three written for the amateur game. Does Pop Warner football use the NFL rulebook? I doubt it. Does the local church basketball league use the NBA book? I hope the hell not. Why can't we apply the same philosophy to baseball and leave the pro book to the professionals? Most of these local leagues apply FED philosophies such as the slide/avoid contact rules, sportsmanship guidelines, substitutions, etc. to the pro rules that the game would be better called using FED, instead of having layers and layers of rules superceding sections of the OBR. When was the last time anyone applied OBR 3.09 in an amateur game?

There's no need to write amateur rules because they already exist as FED. Maybe if we start convincing these local leagues to adopt FED rules, we can get more consistency on our officiating.

Quote:

All the fuss that occurs is no different than different religions arguing the Bible. Their are varying views and interpretations in the many gray areas. People accept what best suits there needs. Some practice the philosophy of verbatim. Others practice the philosophy of intent and neo-romanticism, and others a mix of both to suit there own needs. Can you see the problem?

No matter how hard we try to get everyone on the same page, people are always going to disagree on something. The key is to agree on those people whose opinions on this board carries more weight, whether it be Carl, Garth, Warren, etc. And why should we accept their opinions? It's because they've established credibility by having their works published. Hell, Carl's written a freakin' book devoted to the differences in rules and practices between the 3 books, so if Carl says such-and-such, his words alone should be enough. That, at least, should hold true on the Internet. Now, Smitty the UIC ain't gonna give a rat's ass what Carl Willson or Warren Childress said, or what the NAPBL rules, or even what a well-respected EWS member had to say about the (il)legality of changing a judgement call. If that's the case, then I guess you pretty much have to do what Smitty says if you want to get those quality rec games. For those of us who want to advance in our officiating careers, we'd be better off bringing the official interpretations and authoritative opinions onto the field and leaving our own opinions in the parking lot.

Just my $0.02,
Dennis

Bringing this to issue again
 

Carl, (now that we seem to be back on a first name basis) it seems to many that we are knocking around various interpretations, etc at various levels.

One issue I have in reading your posts and those of certain eUmpire editors is that is seems these editors waiver in their philosophy of "by the book" and "by the intent" of the rule. I see rules, official interpretation, and authoritative opinion quoted. It seems, at times, that people use what they wish merely to prove a point rather than that which may actually apply. I perceive inconsistency in method.

Is there an order of rank on which to accept such rules over official interpretation over authoritative opinion, etc. As an example, if I am satisfied with what is found in Official interpretation (such as NAPBL) need I go beyond to authoritative opinion?

I think this issue is wide open and needs discussion with all the rules, official interpretations (sometimes misquoted), and authoritative opinions flying around.

Will you address these questions? It may allow me (and perhaps others) to better understand your responses and others as these threads continue.

Steve
Member
EWS

Re: Bringing this to issue again
 

Steve,

Where do you work that the NAPBL Manual has been declared, "official"? Are you a Minor League umpire and didn't tell us about it?

The fact is, the NAPBL Manual has not been declared official for any amateur league that I am aware of. It has traditionally been the place where umpires go first to find answers to common OBR problems and interpretations. But as far as "official" goes, it ain't that.

NAPBL Manual is authoritative in amateur baseball - - just like Jim Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated and Jaksa/Roder's book.

So, why is it you will accept what the NAPBL Manual has to say, but you dismiss Jim Evans?

Also, have you considered the fact that Jim Evans owns a professional umpire's school whose graduates have been assigned to leagues under the direct jurisdiction of the NAPBL Manual? Wouldn't it be counterproductive for Jim Evans to teach something that is contrary to the NAPBL Manual? Of course it would!

A wonderful prize for anyone who can truly convince me that any direct contradiction exists between JEA and NAPBL.

Re: Re: Bringing this to issue again
 

Jim, I have to disagree here. The assertion that the NAPBL is "official" has been made by both Carl and me, among others. Since the NAPBL is one of the three bodies (now two) for whom the rules were written, any interpretation by them is rightly considered "official" for those rules. Their interpretations are the contemporary equivalent of the casebook comments, and have the same force. In fact, I also consider those sections of JEA that report the "Professional Interpretation" are also "official" in respect of MLB baseball. They may only be authoritative in Minor League baseball, and amateur baseball if the league subscribes to that. NAPBL overrules JEA in NAPBL leagues. JEA Pro interpretations and the Pro Instructions to Umpires would overrule NAPBL in MLB.

My answer to Bfair's question is that you have to review ALL of the sources that effect any given rule and that are accepted by your league. Basic OBR is modified by NAPBL officially, and may also be modified by JEA Professional Interpretations if your league approves that. J/R is only authoritative anywhere, because it's a training manual and does not simply report official interpretations but in some cases actually makes its own interpretations without drawing any clear distinction between the two, as indicated in an email to Carl by Mike Fitzpatrick of the PBUC and hinted at by Cris Jones of the PBUC. Either way, understanding the history and tradition of a rule from JEA and J/R is also important to being able to read the Basic OBR the way the rule makers originally intended. It is also important to help the umpire understand which rules are no longer strictly relevant in modern baseball, are no longer enforced for some reason or have been superceded by later rules, etc.

OTOH, I can certainly agree that NAPBL might only be considered authoritative in certain specific leagues. That's usually because those leagues truly don't realise what the NAPBL represents. In general terms, however, NAPBL should be considered as providing "official" interpretations of professional rules, unless directed otherwise by your league.

The objective of JEAPU is to produce officials for MLB baseball. The leagues of the NAPBL are only a stepping stone in that direction. Sure the two are professional leagues operating largely under the same rules. However, there are times when the two differ. The recent meeting of AAA officials in Phoenix Arizona highlighted that there are differences that have to be dealt with by officials in transition from one to the other.

A specific example of a difference is that NAPBL allows a 4th out appeal on the same runner at the same base after oversliding and being tagged out in a force situation. That is NOT the case at the MLB level, at least not yet as far as we can know. The Bremigan interpretation on removing the force is applicable in MLB but NOT in NAPBL leagues. There are certainly others, else why give MLU's their own special written Instructions. Whether this difference is highlighted by JEA is another matter. There are many confusing issues that are simply not dealt with in JEA, because it was intended for publication to the masses. That makes it less useful in those cases.

I hate to disagree with you, Jim, because most times when I do that I spend a worrying period waiting for you to prove me wrong. (grin) This time I don't think I'll be too worried, though. The rules are pro, the interps are pro, therefore the interps are official for pro. Whether they are accepted by individual amateur organisations and leagues is a whole other question. I know they are accepted by LL Inc, because Jim Booth has a letter to that effect. As for PONY, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, MSBL and all the other flavours of amateur baseball, who knows.

Cheers,

You both bring out excellent points in your previous post, but, Jim and Warren, something tells me this issue really needs to be addressed. Both you were here long before I was here and likely long before most were here.

Isn't it amazing that you are just now finding out your differences in all the "official interpretations" and "authoritative opinions" that must have been quoted and discussed. This is like being under the hood of a Chevy for a full year and suddenly realizing you've got a Ford manual.

If we can address what we should expect for exactly what level of baseball when the various rulings are discussed it may very well lead to much greater understanding in the future.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[deleted by moderator]

[Edited by Brad on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 09:16 AM]

Warren,

I s'pose this debate is all about one's definition of, "official." I take it to mean that a particular league has specifically sanctioned the use of that manual to train their umpires and/or settle protest disputes. I know of no amateur league which has specifically declared the <i>NAPBL Manual</i> (now the <i>PBUC Manual</i>,) official.

If you are saying that the NAPBL is official in the sense that it provides rulings which are considered official in professional leagues, and since it's their rulebook, what they say goes - - I can understand that.

I'm a firm believer that professional leagues are the sole authorities when it comes to the <i>Official Baseball Rules</i>. It's their book. No one understands the history or spirit and intent better than the OBR's owners do.

Now, since the <i>PBUC Manual</i> is loaded with professional interpretations, and <i>Jim Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated</i> is also loaded with professional interpretations, and also since no amateur league has specifically mandated either book as official for use in their league, I would submit that both carry equal weight to today's umpire of amateur baseball. I just don't understand why an umpire would accept one and not the other. It just makes no sense to me.

Now, as far as Little League goes, we all thought the <i>NAPBL Manual</i> was considered official for use in Little League. Apparently we were wrong. I have heard that the UIC of LL has decided that the NAPBL is not official for use in LL. I am still awaiting confirmation, but I fear the source was rather reliable. So, despite Jim Booth's letter, the <i>NAPBL Manual</i> simply isn't official in Little League Baseball.

Now, does that mean we should toss it away? <b>CERTAINLY NOT!</b> It is a vital tool for a total understanding of the professional rules of the game, which are used in amateur play.

What the NAPBL and JEA tell us is golden. When it does not conflict with your league's rules, those books should be every umpire's guiding force. Without them we are left to sort through the OBR as is, which is an impossible task even for Bfair. That would lead to tens of thousands of different rulings from millions of umpires. That should be avoided at all costs.

Oh, Jim. I've got this feeling when I go do my games tomorrow I'll be walking with a limp. The one leg is just a little longer from all the pullin'.

What happens when the amateur league I assign says we are OBR except as amended by our own league rules (which are numerous, but at least I can get rulings). Does OBR mean MLB, Minor, or what? Do I give any more credit to NAPBL vs. JEA or J/R ???

I am even more interested just for our discussion purposes on the boards. I feel I did a good job in finding something in J/R , and 8 people say what about JEA. So next time I quote JEA and someone says what about NAPBL. Then I run into Carl authoring an article saying don't balk F1 because he came off with wrong foot but wasn't trying a pickoff----I check all 3 and they say balk, but Carl says "no intent".

Like, when do you go "by the book" vx. "intent" and then from what source? Isn't there a problem here of just quoting whatever we feel fits our point the best?

I am still waiting for Carl to put some "order" into these "authorities".


Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

Those books work in harmony. They are not contradictory. For a complete understanding of the Official Baseball Rules, careful study of all three is a good start, to say the least.

Steve, do you have an obsession with Carl or something?

Look, there are many facets to being a good umpire. Rules knowledge and application is but one of these facets.

Another facet is something not written in any book. It entails common sense and sound judgment. These are the <b>unwritten</b> rules of umpiring. I think it is damaging if we lose the ability to discuss those aspects because someone is always looking over our shoulders to point out hypocrisy in our opinions.

Sometimes it isn't best to go by the book. We all find these aspects for ourselves, and we should be able to discuss them openly. If you disagree, fine. But don't set out on a crusade of finger-pointing, Senator McCarthy.

Sit back, relax, have a coffee, read, absorb, read again, re-absorb, process, digest, and learn.

It can't hurt you.

Agreed....
 

You are correct about the pivotal point of the debate, Jim.

I am saying that the OBR is written by and for the MLB and NAPBL professional leagues. It says so right there in the Forward to the rules. If either of them makes an interpretation of the OBR, then that interpretation <i>ipso facto</i> becomes an integral part of their OBR. Where NAPBL interprets specifically for it's minor leagues, and JEA reports a different interpretation made specifically for MLB, then we need to have our local league arbitrate which way to go. However where the two sources agree, as they do the majority of the time, then I believe that interpretation is the equivalent of a casebook note or comment printed in the OBR itself.

We all know that casebook comments were deliberately included to form a part of, and have the same force as, the rules themselves. If there is any doubt of that, here is the IMPORTANT NOTE which comes after the Forward to the <i>Official Baseball Rules</i>:

"<i>IMPORTANT NOTE

The Official Playing Rules Committee at its December 1977 meeting, voted to incorporate the Notes Case Book Comments section directly into the Official Playing Rules at the appropriate places. Basically, the Case Book interprets or elaborates on the basic rules and in essence have the same effect as rules when applied to particular sections for which they are intended.

This arrangement is designed to give quicker access to any written language pertaining to an Official Rule and does not require a reader to refer to different sections of the Official Playing Rules book in considering the application of a particular rule.

Case Book material is printed in smaller type than the rule language.</i>"

I'm saying that these "official" interpretations are the contemporary equivalent of the case book notes and comments. If your league says "<i>We accept OBR</i>" (warts and all) then, by extension, they have automatically accepted the professional interpretations from these two sources as "official" too, IMHO.

Now, I think that's closer to your second paragraph above than to the first, so I'd say we aren't too far from an actual agreement on this question. I think we are probably talking about two sides of the same coin. I say the league doesn't have to formally accept the NAPBL or JEA, if they say they go strictly by OBR. OTOH, if they say "<i>we go by our own rules which are based on OBR</i>", THEN I agree that they would also have to say "<i>and we accept/reject NAPBL or JEA interpretations of our OBR-based rules</i>" before you could call them "official" for that league.

I am conscious, for example, that while LL Inc appears to use strict OBR that in fact they may simply use OBR as the basis for <i>their own rules</i>. They have deliberately left out the casebook comments in certain cases, for example, which are crucial to a complete understanding of certain rules. They accept some rules, reject others and add the occasional rule of their own. That's not what I call going by OBR. That's using OBR as a basis for your <i>own</i> rules. There is no rule 7.13 in OBR. That's why I agree that LL Inc., specifically, needs to confirm that they accept NAPBL or JEA interpretations. The same <i>may not</i> be true for PONY, but equally it <i>may</i> be too. I just don't know from way down here. Am I making sense with this?

Agreed. I never suspected that you were suggesting otherwise. Bfair's famous catchcry is "consistency". Well, consistency is best served by having an agreed set of interpretations accepted as "official" in your league. In some cases that requires a positive affirmation (your definition of "official"), as in the case of LL Inc. In other cases, it may be presumed from the declaration that the league follows the strict OBR (my definition of implied "official"). Either way, every arbiter in any given league must accept the "official" league line in interpretation, rather than saying "<i>We'll I'm doing it my way until you prove otherwise to me</i>". I'm reasonably sure I've "heard" Bfair "utter" words to that effect more than once.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 04:59 AM]

This is relatively easy to answer.

If your league uses its OWN rules, but based on the OBR, then they have to tell you which of those authorities (if any) to apply to <i>their</i> rules.

OTOH, if your league uses strict OBR, with some local additions of their own, then you should use <i>both</i> the NAPBL and JEA Professional Interpretations, which are "official" for OBR - <b><i>unless</b></i> the league specifically precludes them. The rest of JEA and pretty much ALL of J/R is only authoritative opinion, which you can certainly use for background information and support for a particular position, but which may or may not pass muster in your league's protest committee.

In order of importance in a strictly OBR league (with modifications) the heirarchy would be:

1. Your league's specific version of a rule, and its interpretation from them.

2. OBR version and "official" NAPBL/JEA interpretation

3. JEA or J/R authoritative opinion, including history and tradition of rule use.

4. NCAA or FED equivalent interpretation, if no other specific interpretation exists.

5. Consensus of senior, experienced officials as to proper interpretation. Includes sources such as Carl Childress' BRD recommendations, written opinions of respected experts, etc.

Only 1 and 2 will likely pass for "official" in your league protest committee. The rest are expert and authoritative support, but may be rejected by protest committees as not applicable. Still, they are a whole lot better than any umpire's personal opinion which almost NEVER "washes" in the committee room.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 06:39 AM]

Put me on the list
 

Bible vs OBR!

Let's see "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now that's Gen. 1:1

"Baseball is a game." that's from OBR.

Now maybe I'll be put in Moose' DON'T READ EVER FILE.

Thanks
David

PS For the rest of you who <b>did</b> understand what Patrick Sz meant in his post I apologize.

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you will find posts of mine since I came to the boards indicating the need for sound judgement and the <b>ability to make the decision</b> whether to enforce or not enforce a rule (based on the intent of the rule).

I, like many or perhaps even most, view Carl as one of the "authorities" of the boards. This is not to say he is infallible. He has been shown to have errored more than once. However, his opinions tyically carry more weight than those of others. That is why I highlight that he, too, can advocate turning a head to a rule or doing slightly different (or even opposite) of what "the book" says. Carl provides good, sound judgement as to when this can and perhaps should be done. That is a benefit he brings to all of us beyond his specific rules knowledge.

However, (you knew that was coming) it also adds to inconsistency. Whether those decisions to circumvent the rules are made by Carl, you, or me (three who now agree we have done it) it adds to inconsistency. Furthermore, who is to say John Doe is wrong when he, also, makes his decision to do so? And, yes, John Doe's decision adds to inconsistency.

I found in the threads regarding Moose and his reversed call (which was done to get the call right) that many attacked him with, "You can't do that, it's against this rule and that rule--you have broken rule 23 from the Koran !!". However, we see a situation in Texas / Stanford whereby those attacking Moose bend over backward in attempts to justify the obvious errors in the Texas game as being within the rules. Such actions justify the need of EWS.

I just find "that" such inconsistency within the discussions on the boards as one worth pointing out. Sometimes there are reasons to help substantiate variances from the rules you desire to substantiate. In the case of Moose and Texas, both were trying to get the call right for those playing the game. I don't think anyone should be attacked for trying to do that. I respect that effort.

In closing, Jim, you liken me to Senator McCarthy in your quote. I don't think that is accurate but if that is the way you see it, then so be it. One thing we do know for sure,
I am certainly no Charlie McCarthy<b>....................</b>like some, at times, appear to be.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS





[Edited by Bfair on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 10:40 AM]

Re: Put me on the list
 

That's an incorrect quote.

The correct is, "In the big inning, ..." ;)

Authority
 

I am just a simple guy.

Professional leagues use OBR with many sources to back it up. The OBR rules are written simply for a reason. The reason is so they CAN BE intrepreted and used by a cross secrion of organizations.

Professional leagues administer and rule in one way. People like Jim Evans write big, big books to help people understand the way professional sports (baseball) look at their use of the book.

Jaksa/Roder is another example of an accepted book (although with great reservation since it has not developed along the scholarly line of JEA.)

Each umpire in MLB is also given a notebook of official directions.

NONE of these actually are adopted by my local Men's League.

What occurs is common to law. As all our BSM (err, attorneys) will attest that law can become the precedant through accepted use over a long period of time. Tradition.

And that is how SOME laws (rules) develop.

Over the past 15 years Carl has made interpretations about rules. His BRD documents simply tell how those rulings were developed. Many have become accepted by the OFFICIAL rules source. Now that does NOT mean MLB or OBR it means maybe the NCAA or the local teams playing in the A & P League.

Bfair's arguement is the age old arguement of "show me the cite, man" and that isn't ALWAYS possible.

It maybe different where you are but I do not have a league that hands me a full, three ringed binder out lining every possible item that the rules of THEIR league encompass.

What we miss here is that people like, Carl, Warren, Jim P and Bob Pariseau do us all a wonderful assitance in having the passion that they show for research and understanding rules.

I am a neo-romantic, I also know the rules. I can allow myself the luxury of smply accepting sometimes rather than trying to tear down the tower.

All you rocket scientists can go on with the battle . . . for me it is much easier, "Play Ball!"

Just The Way I See It

Oh,no, Tee. You got me all wrong. Just the opposite of that. Far more like you. I am not looking for boogers nor dotted "i's" or crossed "t's" (no pun intended). Certainly I need to know what the book says and what <b>should</b> be done so I can make the knowledgeable decision about what <b>will</b> be done.

My point I try to make here is how those who wish to use the rules <b>when it favors them</b> do so, however, things change when they wish to cirmumvent the rules. Now, they don't do so necessarily by "not using the rules" , they instead start using different authorities or making their interpretations of today different than their interpretations of yesterday.

However, when someone else admits they "vary" from the book they run the risk of verbal castration if they are not an eUmpire editor. Yet we see eUmpire editors trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to justify a call reversal in Texas because they wish not to offend those involved and the situation didn't fit into the criteria they had established to change a call.

As an example. let me quote an editor from "a call changed in Texas"
_____________________:

(editor's quote)
<i>
".... I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right......
(1) One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
(2) Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
(3) Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
(4) After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted
</i>
______________________

Now, I will quote the same editor from a different post concerning a similar HBP incident where BU didn't "announce" his call upon seeing the HBP. Then the coach complained. (Does this incident sound similar?) Difference in this situation, however, was that BU, after coach's complaint, did not discuss with UIC, but rather, outwardly stated to UIC that he was certain the batter was HBP. The coach heard BU, however, PU felt certain ball had not hit batter.
______________________

(same editors's quote)

<i>I've always taught that a field umpire who clearly sees a ball hit a batter should wait a beat to see if the UIC will stop play. Then, if the plate umpire makes no call, the BU should kill the ball and award the base, returning runners not forced to their TOP.

I've also taught that <b>once the moment passes, it cannot be retrieved.</b>

From your post it appears <b>your partner did not come in until the defensive coach "appealed" your non-call."

That's too late,</b> and I believe you quite properly stuck to your call.</i>
__________________


Despite the minor differences and the outcome of the plays, the point is <b>the editor's position changed</b> from November that BU missed his moment to make a call, couldn't come in after the coach appealed, and that at that time <b>it is too late.</b> However, we have the call in Texas and all of a sudden we have the same editor stating that two conflicting calls were made (both no calls), it is ok to come in after a coach complains, and it's ok to change the call.

<b>The biggest reveral we had here was in the editor.</b> These positions aren't even close to each other. Now, what has really changed since the November post to the post concerning the Texas play. Has there been a new official interpretation we haven't heard about? Maybe it's the people who changed that were involved? Maybe it's the fact that the Texas call did not apparently fall into the List of % Changeable Calls and it had to be <b>searched</b> to find a way to make it fit?

This is the inconsistency I wish to point out. Are we merely using rules and interpretations to prove what we desire and when we desire. To only prove what we wish to suit the occasion at hand?

When I read a post, now, I not only need to think of the baseball rule application and the intent of the rule, but I now must include the intent of the editor.

I hope I have made my point perfectly clear.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 03:15 PM]

I'm afraid that Steve Freix doesn't follow me yet. I understand why, of course. It's always difficult for relative beginners, average umpires, and umpires who want to impose <b>their</b> "morality" on the game to sort their way through complex situations, such as "two umpires making opposite calls on the same play" or "don't call a highly technical balk."

Steve is forever hung up on the fact that very good umpires don't have to follow the rules and yet what they do is still accepted by coaches, players, fans, and most other officials. Umpires who don't yet understand why that happens haven't come to grips with what the umpire's chief duty is. I'd recommend that anyone similarly confused read Warren Willson's magnificient series on Umpire Ethics at eumpire.com.

Steve, you continue attempting to resurrect that dead horse of the Texas Play by claiming inconsistent rulings on my part. I don't think anyone who has followed this debate even cursorily will buy that. From the first post to the last I have argued the Texas play is <b>different</b> from the Moose play: Texas was one of concurrent jurisdiction; Moose, one umpire responsible; Texas, not a force play; Moose, force play; Texas, not a dropped ball; Moose, a dropped ball after a throw; Texas, umpires conferred properly under 9.04(c); Moose, improper involvement of an umpire far from the play and one never a part of any decision. I could go on.

I think the responses from everyone in that discussion show pretty well the raison d'être behind anyone's bringing it up again.

I understand well your point about consistency. I rail against an umpire who doesn't enforce the FED (don't-move-the-shoulder-to-check-a-runner) rule and then urge other umpires not to call a balk when the pitcher steps off with the wrong foot. "Inconsistent!" is the charge. "Wrong!" is the answer. Ignoring the FED rule occurs because the umpires doesn't like it. Not calling the technical balk occurs because the umpire knows baseball.

BTW: I am fond of saying about a FED game: "If you take their money, the FED deserves your allegiance." For some reason umpires who don't like the position that represents <b>always</b> remind me they work for schools, not the FED. Let me one final time explain that my comment is indeed meant metaphorically: If you accept a game played under FED rules, you should enforce FED rules. That is the meaning -- and always has been -- of my comment about accepting "FED pay." But, back to the point:

Steve, what happens, though, is you expect <b>your</b> version of consistency. Let me quote something I've written in nearly every book, something I've said in nearly every clinic for thirty years:<UL><b>Learn all the rules.</b> Until you do, you cannot choose which ones you will enforce and which ones you will ignore.</ul>

I'll give you two examples, both dealing with the pitcher in an OBR Youth game (but the players shave).

<b>Play 1:</b> F1 in the set position, stretches, comes down for the pause, and then delivers. In my judgment it was very close as to whether he actually stopped or not. "Coulda been a stop, coulda been a bounce."

<b>Play 2:</b> F1 in the windup position notices there's a runner on second, so he slowly slides forward into the set position and leans forward to take his sign.

The decisions I make on those two plays, I believe, demonstrate my philosophy, which is: I'm going to make the calls that make my job easier.

In Play 1, I call "That's a balk!" in a heartbeat. In Play 2, I'll say: "Oh, sorry, Skip. I didn't see it. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I'll watch if from on, though."

If I don't enforce the stop, pitchers will continue to have an advantage not intended by the rules.

The purpose of forcing the pitcher to step off the rubber before changing from the wind-up to the set position is two-fold: (1) It prevents the quick pitch; and (2) It prevents the pitcher from "running" into the pitch. In my Play 2, the pitcher does neither. "Sorry, Coach, just wadn't payin' no attention. I'll get him next time, you bet."

If I balk the kids EARLY for not stopping, they will begin to stop, and we can play ball in silence.

If I balk a kid because he's not yet proficient in the pitching technique, I simply show I know the rule but I don't know baseball.

After I learned how and why to make those calls, the attitude behind those decisions worked well for the rest of my career.

It's what I've been teaching ever since I became a clinician, it's what I wrote about in my third article ever for a national audience, it's what I continue to believe, right on through <i>51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game</i>.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 07:25 PM]

Again, Carl Childress, I agree with much of what you say. As I stated I learn much from your statements of when to, and when not to.

However, you did not fully address the editorial reversal, which was indeed the main point of my last post. <b>What caused this editoririal reversal??</b> We can see and understand what caused you to make or not make a call on the field, but I still can't understand what caused a position to change 180 degrees in 3 months.
_________________________________________________

As an example. let me quote an editor from "a call changed in Texas" :
_____________________

<b>(editor's quote) </b>

<i>".... I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right......
(1) One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
(2) Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
(3) Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
(4) After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted</i>

______________________

Now, I will quote the same editor from a different post concerning a similar HBP incident where BU didn't "announce" his call upon seeing the HBP. Then the coach complained. (Does this incident sound similar?) Difference in this situation, however, was that BU, after coach's complaint, did not discuss with UIC, but rather, outwardly stated to UIC that he was certain the batter was HBP. The coach heard BU, however, PU felt certain ball had not hit batter.
______________________

<b>(same editors's quote)</b>

<i>I've always taught that a field umpire who clearly sees a ball hit a batter should wait a beat to see if the UIC will stop play. Then, if the plate umpire makes no call, the BU should kill the ball and award the base, returning runners not forced to their TOP.

I've also taught that once the moment passes, it cannot be retrieved.

From your post it appears your partner did not come in until the defensive coach "appealed" your non-call."

That's too late, and I believe you quite properly stuck to your call.</i>

__________________________________________________ _____

Inquiring people want to know ???

It is not the specific play in Texas. Read the last post. It, indeed, is claiming a position one day, verifying it through rule and official interpretation, and the changing the next day. What happened to all the rule and interpretation used to make the first position stand?

Can't you see how this should cause readers to question the content or the intent? Are we merely using rules and interpretations to prove what we desire and when we desire. To only prove what we wish to <b>suit the occasion at hand?</b> Can you not understand after having read the first stance how I felt the second stance was merely to "cover your butt" based on the List of 5 Changeable Calls? One day this doesn't fit, the next day it does---by stretching it into two calls (neither call declared). <b>Please advise, what has changed to cause this change in position??</b>

Just a point,

Steve
Member
EWS

(BTW, perhaps I was wrong in believing your first post, but I knew I had seen it and remembered it. At least I try to remember---whether you believe that or not).

Growing With The Game
 

I wonder how many umpires who are involved in an Association that does multiple leagues have in their possession (not necessarily on the field) specific rule books for those leagues. I know Little League has their own book and Babe Ruth has their own website. I do Little League, FABL, National Junior Baseball and mostly Connie Mack. For Connie Mack we are told that they use OBR American League and receive a one-page list of exceptions such as courtesy runners for pitchers and catchers, the run rule, avoid contact rule and confirmation that metal cleats are permitted. I think consistency; game control and management judge umpires.

I think some of the difficulty is learning when you give a speeding ticket, when you don't and when you just wave the traffic on. Little League might be 45mph in a 45mph zone while Varsity baseball might be 50MPH in that same zone. I wouldn't try to learn how to hit by watching the 210 hitters (No disrespect to memory of hitting instructor Charley Lau). I would try watching the 300 hitters. Some of these 300 guys are regular posters here. There is inconsistency on fields because we have .210 umpires mixed with all-stars.

I don't think we need the rules of How To Umpire written down although I would be in the market for another video or two. I had a Connie Mack doubleheader near the end of last summer. We were doing a second game after a makeup because the coaches needed to make up another game. My partner was BU top of first with runner on second and no one out. The runner tried to cross over on a routine grounder to SS. I glanced away to watch the batter-runner touch first as a routine throw went to 3B. The next thing my partner did was call a "SAFE". We were off to a real shaky start because BU forgot one of Carl's (and a host of other good umpires) rules, #23. Make An Unusual Call On A Routine Play*. When I started out umpiring ten years ago I would not have understood how failing to actually tag the runner was still an out! The fielder did get his glove down with ball and the runner did nothing special just something dumb.[/QUOTE][/i]

The Internet is here for the free exchange of ideas. It is a great democracy but to me that does not mean all posts carry equal weight.

Just wondering when the season starts in Pleasantville and which umpires get to do playoffs?

Just my opinion,

Jim
POMO
(Posting On My Own)
(*)51 Ways to Ruin a BASEBALL Game

My goodness, the plays aren't the same, are they?

Play 1: In the November play, in a two-man crew the coach went to the partner and the partner then went to the UIC to beg for a change. Too late. He had his chance to make the call and skipped it. The UIC is under no obligation to change the call -- and shouldn't. He has NO real assurance that the umpire saw the call because everything is colored by the presence of the coach.

Play 2: In the Texas play in a four-man crew, the coach went to the UIC, then to Bible, then the crew met without the coach and discovered the discrepancy. The plate umpire then determined that U2 had seen the HBP. Remember: the coach and U2 never talked together. Consequently, the home plate umpire could be absolutely certain the coach had not put pressure on the second-base umpire.

Two different situations, all colored by the fact that the umpire in the FIRST play did not act properly -- twice.

"Carpe diem" is my advice to field umpires in a two-man crew.

Let's repair some broken information
 

Uh...we remember the little kid game, telephone? So the ORIGINAL sitch has been garbled up a bit. Let's correct some mistakes above.

BEG FOR A CHANGE? Where in the world did this come from. The correct phrase would be: .. went to UIC to ask if UIC had a look at the play.

The rest is true.. but it's like saying the sky is blue.. duh. UIC cannot change the call, thus he has no obligation. He is not even obligated to answer the BU question.

But the fact of the matter is that he did. The Plate Umpire, told the BU, what actually happened. No guess, no maybe, no I think so, the fact. So BU chose to use this info to make HIS call.

In most other cases, of this similar instance... when ump 1 does go to ump 2 (rightly or wrongly, that is not the point here).. the OTHER ump would say, "Not sure" or "It's your call".. in other words, they stay the hell out. If this had been the case in the BIG PLAY, then call would have stood.

But UIC just happened to be one of the most SENIOR officials of a large organization.. and he said matter of factly that XYZ happened. And if he said it, it was a fact.

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

Re: Put me on the list
 

Nah... that's an exclusive club of ONE! :)

Mike B
Member, Founder
EWS

Re: Let's repair some broken information
 

Say, Mike, you didn't read this very carefully. "The Novemeber Play" that Steve and I were talking about has nothing to do with your play. My comments on THAT play were made on another Board. It may be hard for you to believe that we were NOT discussing <b>your</b> screwup, but I promise you: We were not.

Why not save yourself added embarassment by deleting your most recent post in this thread? (Just in case you do, I'm going to make a copy.)

LOL, as they say.

Re: Re: Re: Let's repair some broken information
 

.

[Edited by Brad on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 11:22 PM]

Deleting Function
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

...Why not save yourself added embarassment by deleting your most recent post in this thread? (Just in case you do, I'm going to make a copy.) LOL, as they say.

You learn something new every day. I did not realize that an umpire could wake up in the morning and change one of HIS well thought out postings after a re-read. I think I've seen a lot of situations (little content / lots of accusations) where the authors would have been well advised to do just that (if you think this means you, the reader, it probably does).

If you EDIT your post does it appear as "edited". If you DELETE your post should a message be retained that you have withdrawn it? I don't anticipate a lot of umpires doing this since we have progressed to a kinder gentler Forum and posts are much more well thought out. It might help the sense of the thread when subsequent posts reflect a deleted post. Kind of like the envelope and postmark stays but the letter disappears.Thanks. Jim Simms/NYC

Re: Deleting Function
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ump20

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: ...Why not save yourself added embarassment by deleting your most recent post in this thread? (Just in case you do, I'm going to make a copy.) LOL, as they say. You learn something new every day. I did not realize that an umpire could wake up in the morning and change one of HIS well thought out postings after a re-read. I think I've seen a lot of situations (little content / lots of accusations) where the authors would have been well advised to do just that (if you think this means you, the reader, it probably does). If you EDIT your post does it appear as "edited". If you DELETE your post should a message be retained that you have withdrawn it? I don't anticipate a lot of umpires doing this since we have progressed to a kinder gentler Forum and posts are much more well thought out. It might help the sense of the thread when subsequent posts reflect a deleted post. Kind of like the envelope and postmark stays but the letter disappears.Thanks. Jim Simms/NYC

Jim: Take a look at the tiny icons at the bottom of every posted message. One of them says: Edit/delete.

If you edit a post, it will say so at the bottom. (Now I just wrote "botom" there. I'm going to post the message, go in an edit it, and it will read "bottom" by the time you see it. There will a statement at the bootm of the edited post informing you that I did, indeed, edit that post around 6:55 am central time.)

Then, I'm going to write a message that says Jim Simms voted for Hillary Clinton. (I would have.) Then, I'm going to delete it, and you'll see the result.

I can edit/delete ONLY my own messages. The same holds true for you.

NOTE: I'm editing again by adding this paragraph at 6:59 am central time. The notation that I edited this post earlier is not appearing now. It is possible the Admin has changed the program some. I'm still going to try to accuse Jim of voting for a Democrat in the last election.

Final note added around 7:03: I get it. Simply correcting a typo (changing "botom" to "bottom") doesn't satisfy the program as an edit. But adding an enitre paragraph, as I did above and here, does.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 07:05 AM]

Big Brother
 

Carl Childress wrote in part

My reputation is ruined. Even worse I never listened to those who advised me never give your real name to anyone on the internet. Now I know why. Of course, I voted for Hillary because the alternative Rick Lazio's only strong position was I am not Hillary. After some of the pardons his position looks iron-clad almost like being opposed to ending capital punishment.

P.S. Thanks for the help -- all of it. Maybe I'll edit a few posts for homework. - Jim From New York

[Edited by Brad on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 11:23 PM]

Reputation...
 

.

[Edited by Brad on Mar 4th, 2001 at 05:20 PM]