I have been reading old archived discussions about incorporating PBUC, Jaska/Roder, and Jim Evans interpretations into the OBR book in the future.

My question is.....WHEN?

If there are 237 errors in the OBR, why haven't we fixed them yet. Every year I tear into my new copy of the rules, and the only thing that ever changes is the strike zone.

All these interpretation manuals, and others such as Carl's BRD, are excellent tools, but until they incorporate them into one official book, they are just opinions, in amatuer baseball.

This is my opinion. Feedback please.

Who knows "WHEN" or "IF" any of the interpretations/rulings wil be incorporated into the rule book(s).... until they are......

Because the various rule books are, in places, confusing (to say the least) interpretations/rulings are provided that make our job on the field easier (or so they say).

Our HS unit here uses the FED case book along with the rule book. We are required to apply the rules using the case book as our guide when necessary. I have worked leagues the use OBR. In that case we were required to use the PBUC as a guide for applying the rules.

I find the interpretations/rulings provided to be a great resource to me. More importantly they also provide some consistency in calls made from umpire to umpire.

Has the OBR rule book changed in the past 20 years? In the past 30? Seems to me that the latest book I have (2001) is exactly the same as my book from the 1960s, except that the old one cost 49 cents and the 2001 version cost 10 bucks.

I heard somewhere that the book remains the same because the MLB players have contracted to play under those rules, and changing something in the book would open a legal can of worms.

So interpretations can be given and instructions can be issued to umpires, but the actual rules remain the same.

I wonder if at some country auction I might find a rule book from way back, from the 1900s. It would be interesting to compare.

Justme,

Every league we work here (many), except for high school, uses OBR, and that is our only required reference. If you used PBUC interps here, coaches (and most umpires for that matter) would say, "what's a PBUC?". The PBUC is for Minor League Baseball, and certainly isn't recognized by most amatuer programs. The same goes for the BRD. Tell a high school coach you're quoting a BRD interpretation, and you'll get the same thing, "what is a BRD, and what does it have to do with the rules?" That is my point. Why don't we just put it in the rules and be done with it. It's great that we have the resources, but not everyone else is familiar with them, that's all I'm saying.

greymule,

OBR hasn't changed much, that's for sure. 1973 with the DH rule, and several changes to the strike zone over the years, and that's it. We get to use the same old book, with the same old errors, and are not given uniform access to the interpretations, so nobody ends up on the same page.
You can't expect every umpire to invest in every manual out there, it just isn't practical. You would then have to furnish copies to every coach, or else grief would surely follow.

Rule changes since 1970
 

There have been several rule changes over the years actually. Here are the changes since 1970, minus any Rule 10 changes, which frankly, who cares about?

1971 - Batters required to wear helmets. Rule 1.16
1973 - American League votes to accept DH on a 3-year experimental basis. National League votes no. Rule 6.10
1974 - Umpires no longer need physical evidence to call illegal pitch, and can warn pitchers if the pitched ball behaves in a strange manner, with ejection on next illegal pitch. Rule 8.02
1975 - Baseballs can be covered in cowhide as well as horsehide. Rule 1.09
Cupped bats allowed. Rule 1.10
1976 - A.L. makes DH permanent. Rule 6.10
1988 - Helmets made mandatory for catcher. Rule 1.16(d)
1996 - The latest strike zone change. Rule 2.00

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 17th, 2005 at 03:32 PM]

Rule Changes through 1989
 

Steve,

Take a look at this link on rules changes.


Tim.

http://www.cosmicbaseball.com/jcba20_rules.html

or...
 

When that High School coach starts giving you a hard time, you could always whip out that ten year old newsletter to support your call!

;)

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 17th, 2005 at 06:05 PM]

Steve,

If there's a question as to how a rule should be applied how is it decided in the leagues you work in? If each umpire decides for themselves and comes up with different applications, I can see that causing more problems with the coaches due to the lack of consistent calls from one umpire to another.

Around here we do not announce to the coaches that we are using a particular resource (PBUC, BRD, etc.) to help us maintain the consistency of our calls throughout the entire association. We umpire buy the rule book but where the rule might cause different umpires to apply the rule differently we do use other established references. Consistency is a good thing.... it keeps the Gods of Baseball happy.

It's true, not everyone is familiar with the PBUC, BRD, FED Case Book or whatever, in fact a lot of people involved in baseball are not even that familiar with the rules. But they're still out there playing, coaching and umpiring.

In addition,
 

"Our HS unit here uses the FED case book along with the rule book. We are required to apply the rules using the case book as our guide when necessary."
---------------

And that is fine as the Case Book is an official document of the NFHS.

And contrary to WCB your group should also be using the Spring Interpretation Newsletter as an official NFHS addition to the Case Book.

T

Re: or...
 

Or, you could tell him you've made the call and if he doesn't like it he can lodge a protest, but you're not going to discuss it any further. http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Tim.

BU56 - I've never had to say that.



TAC - Sarcasm is like fine wine, appreciated by those capable of affording it.

Re: Re: or...
 

Or, you could tell him you've made the call and if he doesn't like it he can stick it up his a$$.:D

Do you have to say that a lot? ;)

I was pretty much being facetious when I wrote the part about telling the coach my resource. I would never tell the coach that I got something out of a book other than the rule book. I was just making a point that these interpretation manuals are unknown to most players, coaches, fans, and umpires.

Tee, we go over the new rule changes every January, and we take the Fed test every year. That's about it. Then we have our usual bull sessions to argue rules and tell sea stories. The rookies at least get the benefit of Mike Winters for an instructor. I sneak into the back of his classes whenever I can.

Edited to correct the spelling of facetious. Thanks W.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 18th, 2005 at 05:17 AM]

No, actually I rarely miss a call, and coaches rarely question my calls.

I am my own worst critic, and when I blow a call, I take it personally. I want to join the crowd and boo myself.

Plus, I was just trying to be funny. Don't tell anyone!