Where do all those interps come from?

[Carl Childress]

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 (The NAPBL manual is no more, having been replaced by the newer model.)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 eteamz 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 where 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]

[Bfair]

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. And to disagree 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

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Bfair

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.

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.

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?

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 immediately practice 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

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

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?

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?"

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.

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.

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

[Bfair]

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

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Bfair
As an example, if I am satisfied with what is found in Official interpretation (such as NAPBL) need I go beyond to authoritative opinion?

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.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

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?

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.

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.

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,

[Bfair]

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

[BJ Moose]

[deleted by moderator]

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

[Jim Porter]

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 NAPBL Manual (now the PBUC Manual,) 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 Official Baseball Rules. It's their book. No one understands the history or spirit and intent better than the OBR's owners do.

Now, since the PBUC Manual is loaded with professional interpretations, and Jim Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated 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 NAPBL Manual 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 NAPBL Manual simply isn't official in Little League Baseball.

Now, does that mean we should toss it away? CERTAINLY NOT! 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.

[Bfair]

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

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Bfair
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 ???

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.

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?

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 unwritten 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.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
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 NAPBL Manual (now the PBUC Manual,) 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.

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 ipso facto 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 Official Baseball Rules:

"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'm saying that these "official" interpretations are the contemporary equivalent of the case book notes and comments. If your league says "We accept OBR" (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 "we go by our own rules which are based on OBR", THEN I agree that they would also have to say "and we accept/reject NAPBL or JEA interpretations of our OBR-based rules" 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 their own rules. 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 own 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 may not be true for PONY, but equally it may be too. I just don't know from way down here. Am I making sense with this?

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.

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 "We'll I'm doing it my way until you prove otherwise to me". 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]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
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 ???

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 their rules.

OTOH, if your league uses strict OBR, with some local additions of their own, then you should use both the NAPBL and JEA Professional Interpretations, which are "official" for OBR - unless 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]

[David B]

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 did understand what Patrick Sz meant in his post I apologize.