Well!! I quote PBUC in regards to J/R and got a hell of a response.

I make a comment about the 4th out appeal and got NO response!! Are we now agreeing that 7.10 Notes is no longer viable and that a 4th out appeal can be sustained even though there can be no appeal??

Dave Davies

No, Dave, you "quoted" Jim Evans (who was a fledgling competitor at the time the Brinkman manual was being created) and a "couple of minor league umpires." Did Mike Fitzpatrick, for example, tell you the J/R was not authoritative? If not Mike, who at the PBUC office said: "The Jaksa/Roder manual does not contain authoritative opinion."

I talked to him about the book. He said it was a fine book but not official. Everybody knows that. Everybody says that.

Remember, Dave: Authoritative opinion is not immune from error.

It is, after all, only <b><font size=eight color=red>OPINION</b></font>.

I don't think you've yet caught on to what AO is. As someone said, you're still confusing it with official interpretations. Get out your JEA. The RULINGS to every SITUATION represent Jim Evans' opinion. It's authoritative, but it's not official. Everything that's OFFICIAL in the JEA is carefully labeled as such.

Can we at least agree on that?

Dave,

1. I suspect the reason you got "NO response" on your comment about the 4th NON-APPEAL out is that while you agreed with Childress and Willson you were not either and so not worth attacking from our opponent's perspective! Sad but true, isn't it?

2. I agree with Carl that you need to separate Authoritative Opinion from Official Interpretation. Maybe you've done that already, but that applies equally to the content in JEA. Only the labelled "<b>Professional Interpretation: ...</b>" is any more official than what J/R contains. Cris Jones was only asked about J/R, not Evans. Even Jim Evans himself, very creditably, points out that the comments he makes on OBR 2.00 for example are only HIS opinion. That's "Authoritative" but it ain't "Official".

3. There have been at least 2 decisions of PBUC in recent times that have challenged the viability of OBR 7.10 Comment concerning 4th out appeals; the non-appeal 4th out on the batter-runner at first AND the "missed" base 4th out appeal on a runner who has only overslid the base on a force! I think BOTH of these rulings are aberrant, but they ARE inescapably "official" for the Minors and any league that follows the PBUC lead. Neither applies to the Majors.

Bottom line? Yes, we agree, that given these 2 PBUC rulings the casebook comment from OBR 7.10 concerning "apparent 4th out" appeals has been superceded and so is "no longer viable" in leagues following the PBUC interpretations - absent a league direction to the contrary, of course.

Cheers,