Authoritative Opinion? J/R?

[Dave Davies]

When did the Jaksa / Roder manual become Authorative Opinion? It hasn't, isn't and won't be considered Authorative Opinion in the future. Too many mistakes.

I asked Jim Evans and a couple of minor league umpires about this manual. Jim said that it was a good body of work by a couple of Brinkman's students but couldn't be used as a valid source because of the mistaken interps.

One of them being the "non-appeal" fourth out appeal. To get a fourth out, ya gotta have an appeal. By Rule.

The fourth out appeal on B-R that never reached 1st; Did he leave 1st too early? No. Did he misss 1st? No. No Appeal! No Appeal, no fourth out.

PBUC's interp? Just a brain fart. They'll fix it.

I got this quote from my browser by just typing "PBUC".

PBUC (Chris Jones, I think, answering a Jim Booth question): "First, let me emphasize that the co-authors of the manual once used at the Brinkman-Froemming Umpires School, are very close friends of mine. Mr. Roder, in particular, is like a brother. Having said that, their manual is only their interpretation of official playing rules and is nowhere an official teaching tool used by professional baseball. It is, however, a very efficient means for umpires across the board, but the manual should not be used for official interpretation".

Hey, I'm not knocking this manual; I read it and enjoy it. But, if I have a problem with a rule, my source is first of all, OBR, then, PBUC. If I'm still not happy, Evan's Annotated. If I'm STILL not happy, I lurk on the various umpire boards.

This "non-appeal" fourth out appeal cries for common sense. I know I won't endear myself to those of you who oppose Carl, Warren and Bob Jenkins. Their views on this particular subject are right on the money, IMO.

Dave Davies
Ca. Dist. 62 LL

[Jim Porter]

Dave,

With all due respect to you and Jim Evans, I think you might be confusing official with authoritative - - just a bit.

Are Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder baseball rules authorities? By gum, yes they are! They're former rules instructors of a former Pro school. At least a few of the professional umpires working today were taught by those gentlemen.

Now, is their information official for any league, most of all pro baseball? No, and I think we all know that. I don't think anyone claims such a thing.

But that certainly does not lessen the value of Chris and Rick's book, nor does it automatically nullify their expertise with the rules of professional baseball.

I find most value with J/R when their opinions enhance and compliment, rather than contradict, Jim Evans' and the PBUC's material. There are very few places where direct contradictions exist. The enhancements are too good to be missed.

So, my old friend Dave, I must disagree with you. J/R is authoritative opnion, with a concession that it is official for no league.

And that's my take on that.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
J/R is authoritative opnion, with a concession that it is official for no league. And that's my take on that.

Jim:

The J/R is official for no league that you and I know of.

Anyway, you've put the issue very well. What I've discovered is this: Nearly everyone who bad mouths the J/R has strong ties to the competing American League umpire school, the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring. In other words, the anti-J/R group's feelings are based not on fact but on jealousy. And I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. I'm jealous of Tim Tschida.

After all, the Brinkman school is one of the original umpire schools, dating back into the 1930s. As such, the instructors and students always considered themselves superior. That feeling seemed to insinuate itself into the attitude of the graduates of JEAPU, for they were the "little, new" kid on the block. They didn't even meet their classes in Florida, which is where everybody goes to be an umpire. I remember reading the stats from those early days in Arizona. Of course, the rivalry was intense.

Jim eventually bought out the Brinkman-Froemming school. But lingering still is that inescapble feeling of inferiority (because they came late to the party) of JEAPU grads. It's certainly not justified, but when did logic get in the way of emotions?

The fact is that hundreds of professional umpires studied under the system created by Nick Bremigan and enhanced by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder. Many of those students are in the major leagues, as you pointed out.

It is worse than ignorant to argue that J/R is not authoritative opinion; it's silly. And it certainly brings into question both the sincerity and the knowledge of the ones making that argument. Fact is, Jaksa/Roder are no less authoritative than Jim Evans, who offers his own opinion often in the JEA. It's authoritative but only that.

An authority, after all, is one whose "opinion" on a given subject is entitled to receive more weight than an ordinary "civilian." One becomes an authority by virtue of his education, training, experience, publications, and position in the area of discussion.

Let me give an illustration.

There's a rookie here at the Forum (Greg) who's just learning umpiring. There's a GV (grizzled veteran) named Steve. I post here. Often, umpires quote J/R here. Sometimes someone will offer a passage from the JEA. I've quoted the rulings of Mike Fitzpatrick. You can see the hierarchy of "authoritative opinion" simply by ranking those entities.

Let's posit an issue: batter interference. Such and such happens, and the question is: Is that interference? There can be no certain answer. Issues of obstruction, interference, balks, etc., are rarely black and white.

Greg's answer is not authoritative EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE RIGHT. That is, we might listen to his position, but we wouldn't feel obligated to accept it simply because his name is attached to it. Some readers would dismiss his opinion (improperly) simply because he is a beginner.

The same is true for Steve's answer. The only difference between Greg and Steve is this: If we take 15 issues, the veteran will be right more often that the rookie. But those opinions are not, as far as anyone can tell, authoritative, for he lacks the credentials that might elevate his "ruling" to that level of expertise.

An answer by Carl Childress is "authoritative" EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE WRONG. I have credentials spanning nearly a half century. I have spent more than a quarter century placing my opinions and "rulings" out in public for everyone to see and dissect. The evidence is clear that most umpires who read my material agree I know what I'm talking about, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T AGREE with what I say.

The same is true for Jaksa/Roder. On an OBR issue their opinion is entitled to more weight than mine: They reached AAA baseball, and they trained major league umpires. They are at a disadvantage, however, because they write only about the OBR and -- more importantly -- they no longer write at all. Each year that passes dates some portion of the J/R though their basic structure is unlikely ever to become obsolete.

Opinions from the JEA are also "authoritative." For example, the plays and rulings are simply the opinions of Jim Evans. They illustrate how HE thinks rules should be enforced or interpreted. For the OBR vÃ*s a vÃ*s J/R, his opinion is more authoritative simply because he made "The Show." Of course, he does offer "official interpretations," but they are always clearly labeled. The fallacy is that umpires quote Jim's opinion as if it was official. The only official statements in the JEA are to be found in the section titled Professional Interpretation.

The Director of the PBUC, Mike Fitzpatrick, would be considered an authority by virtue of his position alone. But when he answers a baseball question, that answer is NOT authoritative. It's the official position of the organization that controls all of the minor league umpires who work in the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, which is about 90% of the total of all pro umpires.

Finally, exactly what is the benefit of "authoritative opinion"?

It's evidence, of course. Every court in the land accepts it. In criminal trials the prosecution's authorities and the defense's authorities go head to head, which only proves that someone's authoritative opinion may not always be right. We all know what happens when two umpires make opposite calls on the same play.

Mainly, though, when we read an authority, we have a feeling of confidence: What he says is LIKELY to be right. Therefore, we can use what he says in our own games with the assurance that we won't look like fools.

WE MIGHT BE WRONG, but we'll be wrong confidently.

[Ump20]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

...

An authority, after all, is one whose "opinion" on a given subject is entitled to receive more weight than an ordinary "civilian." One becomes an authority by virtue of his education, training, experience, publications, and position in the area of discussion...

An answer by Carl Childress is "authoritative" EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE WRONG. I have credentials spanning nearly a half century. I have spent more than a quarter century placing my opinions and "rulings" out in public for everyone to see and dissect. The evidence is clear that most umpires who read my material agree I know what I'm talking about, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T AGREE with what I say...

Finally, exactly what is the benefit of "authoritative opinion"?

It's evidence, of course. Every court in the land accepts it. In criminal trials the prosecution's authorities and the defense's authorities go head to head, which only proves that someone's authoritative opinion may not always be right. We all know what happens when two umpires make opposite calls on the same play.

Mainly, though, when we read an authority, we have a feeling of confidence: What he says is LIKELY to be right. Therefore, we can use what he says in our own games with the assurance that we won't look like fools.

WE MIGHT BE WRONG, but we'll be wrong confidently.

I think Jim Porter and Carl Childress have made excellent points about the education of an umpire. If I am having car troubles, and I know little more than how to change the oil, I could check with the neighbor next door who as “equally qualified” to render an opinion. I may be lucky and he had the exact same situation. I would probably feel more confident and more likely to get a more reliable answer on a consistent basis if I asked the mechanic who has serviced my cars for the past 15 years.

When I asked the question about the home run ball that rebounds off the TOP of the wall (see other thread) I thought I knew that it was a home run but I wasn’t sure why. More importantly I could not clearly explain it to others. When I brought the “authoritative opinion” of Papa C to a meeting last night at Umberto’s Restaurant, there were a few who were impressed. Some asked who CC is. When I mentioned BRD and the fact that a couple of these guys were at the high school meeting at which Carl spoke about ten years ago they were a bit more accepting.

I appreciate a mechanic who can tell the subtle differences in sound that an engine makes. I think I am fortunate when that mechanic is available at all times of the day and I really value the fact that he WANTS to show you how to recognize these signs for yourself. In some places we call those kinds of mechanics, TEACHERS. Jim Simms / NYC

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

The J/R is official for no league that you and I know of.

Papa C I think the issue for at least myself is this:

What happens in the PRO Game when lets say Joe Torre lodges a protest? What's the procedure? Do they go to the book first?, then to coin a lawyers term - case law? (authoritative opinion).

Let's take the infamous Pine-tar incident involving George Brett - what actually happened?

I consider Authoritative opinion tools for learning rules and how to enforce them.

But when push comes to shove are these opinions used in any analysis by lets say the Commissioner of Baseball in determining the validity of a Protest?

I have hardly if ever seen a protest upheld in major league baseball anyway so that point is probably mute at best.

To me the simplist answer is update the rule book

I gather from my time on the internet that you, Jim P, Warren and Bob are avid readers of not only the rules but just about any authoritative opinion out there.

One of my shortcomings is unfortunately I am not. Give me 1 source in which I can go and find the answer. Maybe that's why I became a real FED advocate after umpiring HS for the past 3 years.

You can say what you want about FED, but their rule / case books are for the most part the only source for rule interpretation that one will need.

One other thing is that (and correct me if I'm wrong), the opinions by JR, Evans etc. all deal with the professional athlete, yet most of us umpire the amateur game. Therefore, if we umpire an amateur game shouldn't their be opinions designed specifically for that level? as opposed to the PRO game?

Thanks Papa C

Pete Booth

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Papa C I think the issue for at least myself is this: What happens in the PRO Game when lets say Joe Torre lodges a protest? What's the procedure? Do they go to the book first?, then to coin a lawyers term - case law? (authoritative opinion).

They go to authoritative opinion. For years -- and still by rule -- that was the President of the League, which office no longer exists. (The owners so hated the umpires' union, they abolished the last part of professional baseball connected with umpires.) Now, that AO resides in the office of the Commissioner, most likely: Sandy Alderson. He will probably decide the next protest, and he will no doubt get the authoritative opinions of others to assist him. Pete: Whoever, however, whenever any protest is decided, it's decided by authoritative opinion. That's why you don't seem to grasp. The Congress passes a law, and the Supreme Court tells us what it means. But nothing gets done without the Executive Power of the President. The rulebook and official interpretations cannot rule on anything.

I gather from my time on the internet that you, Jim P, Warren and Bob are avid readers of not only the rules but just about any authoritative opinion out there. One of my shortcomings is unfortunately I am not. Give me 1 source in which I can go and find the answer.

You can find nearly everything about a FED game by reading: the rule book, the case book, and the quarterly bulletin, specifically the one in February/March that lists interpretations for the current year. I have them going back to the first one, in 1976. (They're on the Internet now.) For the NCAA you can read the interpretations of Bill Thurston and -- next year -- those of Dave Fetchiet in the BRD, as you can those of the PBUC that do not make their umpires' manual. You really can't do a good job in an OBR game if you don't have and follow the interpretations in that manual. Finally, you're in the only spot to get the latest nuances of official and authoritatiive opinion, here at the Official Forum. Because of our working relationship with the higher levels, we get the information first. Twenty years of honest dealings with those Committees counts for something.

Believe or not, there are some umpies who post on the Internet who believe they need to listen to no one; everything they need to know about the OBR they themselves find directly in the book. Their reading of the rules suffices. Happily, there are remaining only a few who reject authoritative opinion altogether though there is a larger group perfectly willing to reject it whenever it does not jibe with their preconceived notions.

One other thing is that (and correct me if I'm wrong), the opinions by JR, Evans etc. all deal with the professional athlete, yet most of us umpire the amateur game. Therefore, if we umpire an amateur game shouldn't their be opinions designed specifically for that level? as opposed to the PRO game?

Pete: LL has its own book, as does Babe Ruth, Pony, the American Legion, Connie Mack, Mickey Mantle, etc. Everybody has their own set of interpretations made specifically for their age group, their field size, their program. But the base of all those groups is the OBR, with all its imperfections, errors, omissions, prejudices, and archaic language. When I have problems with that book, I always go, in order, to:

1. the BRD
2. the PBUC umpire's manual
3. the JEA
4. the J/R
5. Baseball's Knotty Problems
6. By the Rules
7. It's Your Call
8. my email community, UT
9. the Internet discussion Boards (Forum, eteamz, URC, and now NFHS Officials Community)

If I haven't found official or authoritative support for my position after going through all those sources, then I have truly found a new Point Not Covered, and my opinion will be authoritative enough for me.

Note: I grew very excited when Jim Booth announced that Cris Jones had ruled a player could return from the dugout to touch the plate. Silly me: The same ruling appeared in It's Your Call, (1989) explained by Harry Wendelstedt. That's why I no longer overlook that most interesting book. If you're familiar with the movie Long Gone, the names Tampico Stogies, Dothan Cardinals, Joe Louis Brown, Stud Cantrell, and Jamie Don Weeks are well-known to you, as they were to the panel of experts who wrote the plays discussed in It's Your Call.

[JJ]

The NCAA rules guy is RICH (Richard) Fetchiet, not Dave. He is my Big Ten supervisor of umpires.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
The NCAA rules guy is RICH (Richard) Fetchiet, not Dave. He is my Big Ten supervisor of umpires.

Yes, I had two different interpreters in "mind" when I mistyped Dave. When I took psychology, the professor called that mistake "automatic speech."

I'm sure Fetch won't mind. He and I seem to get along OK. Heck, I even took your pre-season exam.

Was this question six?

6. Runner on second when an ineligible player hits a double scoring the runner. After two pitches to the next batter, the defensive team appeals the ineligible player. Which of the following statements are true?
a) call the ineligible player out,
b) eject the ineligible player,
c) score the run,
d) return the original runner to second base,
e) call the present batter out,
f) score the run and leave the ineligible player at second base,
g) remove the ineligible player from the game after the inning ends,
h) none of the above are true.

Let's email Mr. Fetchiet and ask him what his NCAA ruling is on this play! I'll send my request tonight.

[blarson]

"When I have problems with that book, I always go, in order, to:
the BRD
the PBUC umpire's manual
the JEA
the J/R
Baseball's Knotty Problems
By the Rules
It's Your Call
my email community, UT
the Internet discussion Boards (Forum, eteamz, URC, and now NFHS Officials Community)
"

I'm surprised to see Knotty Problems so high on the list. Maybe I should say I'm happy to see it. :-) In my early years of umpiring (before about 9 years off)I had no knowledge of any other sources. I found this one at All American Sport Shop when Gus still owned it.

Unfortunatly having to ramp up my equiment has meant that I haven't been able to keep up on the material available now. Starting late this year I hope to start amassing some of these. Since I'm not doing FED yet, I think the first 3 things I'll get in order are PBUC, J/R and then BRD (hoping to get back into FED next year)

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by blarson
"When I have problems with that book, I always go, in order, to:
the BRD
the PBUC umpire's manual
the JEA
the J/R
Baseball's Knotty Problems
By the Rules
It's Your Call
my email community, UT
the Internet discussion Boards (Forum, eteamz, URC, and now NFHS Officials Community)
"

I'm surprised to see Knotty Problems so high on the list. Maybe I should say I'm happy to see it. :-) In my early years of umpiring (before about 9 years off)I had no knowledge of any other sources. I found this one at All American Sport Shop when Gus still owned it.

Unfortunatly having to ramp up my equiment has meant that I haven't been able to keep up on the material available now. Starting late this year I hope to start amassing some of these. Since I'm not doing FED yet, I think the first 3 things I'll get in order are PBUC, J/R and then BRD (hoping to get back into FED next year)

Knotty Problems was originally the work of Evans the First, Billy Evans. (I outbid Herb McCown for an early edition of Umpire Billy Evans' Siimplified Baseball Rule Book. There's no year, but it must be dated from 1904 (when he became a major league umpire) through 1909. I know that because of the following statement:

According to the code, when a block occurs the umpire shall declare it, and base runners may run without liability to be put out until the ball has been returned to and held by the pitcher. A batter rule that savors more of fair play, is a ground rule which says all base runners shall advance two bases on an overthrow into the crowd. Often a person responsible for the block, in order to gain an advantage for a certain club, retains possession of the ball, or throws or kicks it beyond reach of the fielders, making it necessary for the umpire to call time and require each base runner to stop at the base last touched by him, play being suspended until the pitcher, with the ball in his possession, gets on the rubber. The wise umpire and manager insists [sic] on a ground rule that will cover all possibilities of a block.

Billy's plea was heard because in 1910 the rules committee first killed the ball on a "block" (overthrow into the crowd) and awarded all runners -- two bases.

BTW: I go to the BRD because generally I'll find the important information (if there are any differences among the codes) there. It just saves me time. I wasn't trying to say it's better than the JEA or the J/R.

[blarson]

Originally posted by Carl Childress .

BTW: I go to the BRD because generally I'll find the important information (if there are any differences among the codes) there. It just saves me time. I wasn't trying to say it's better than the JEA or the J/R. [/B]

I didn't take it that way. Right now, I'm only doing LL and some OBR Fall ball. Once I get into FED again, I think BRD will be an excellent quick and 'authoritative' reference. In addition to a hell of an interesting read, for an umpire at least.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

6. Runner on second when an ineligible player hits a double scoring the runner. After two pitches to the next batter, the defensive team appeals the ineligible player. Which of the following statements are true?
a) call the ineligible player out,
b) eject the ineligible player,
c) score the run,
d) return the original runner to second base,
e) call the present batter out,
f) score the run and leave the ineligible player at second base,
g) remove the ineligible player from the game after the inning ends,
h) none of the above are true.

Let's email Mr. Fetchiet and ask him what his NCAA ruling is on this play! I'll send my request tonight.

a, b, c -- isn't it? (assuming it's not some "tricky" wording question on the difference between "eject" and "disqualify)