J/R Manual

[piaa_ump]

you wont regret it....

I buy one every year and donate the old one to a new umpire in my association.....

[canadaump6]

I'll add my thoughts into the mix.

The Jaksa/Roder manual is a good resource for interpreting grey areas of the rulebook, so long as everybody else is using it. Many of its interpretations differ from how most umpires would rule on plays. For example:

-J/R states that a runner can only be called out for interference outside the 45 foot running lane if a) He is hit with the throw or b) He causes the first baseman to misplay the throw from the catcher. If the catcher tries to throw the ball around the runner and this causes an overthrow, no interference is to be called. However, many people say that if the runner being outside the running lane causes the catcher to make a bad throw, this should be interpreted as interference.

-J/R states that batter interference on the catcher's throw to retire a stealing runner should be called when the batter makes extraordinary movement while inside the batter's box, regardless of intent. For example, swing carrying the batter over home plate but his feet do not leave the box. The official rules do not say anything about extraordinary or abnormal movement inside the batter's box.

-J/R states that on a missed fielding try, the fielder must essentially disappear or risk obstruction. On a missed attempt to glove a thrown ball however, the fielder does not have to immediately disappear.

-The J/R manual states that when the umpire puts the ball in play, all fielders (except for the catcher) must be in fair territory. After the umpire says "play" the fielders may go into foul territory. I have been told that this is not true- that all fielders must stay in fair territory after the umpire signals "play".

So basically, the J/R manual can be useful, but a lot of its material I find questionable, as outlined above. Unless everyone you work with uses it, I recommend taking its contents with a grain of salt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I recommend taking its contents with a grain of salt.

while I agree with that conclusion (and the conclusion applies to all non-official publications, including JEA and BRD), I think J/R is right on most of the items you mentioned.

[greymule]

The J/R and the other references (BRD, Evans, etc.) have been invaluable to me. This is not because they provide definitive answers to every "what if," but because they examine and consider so many plays that simply don't fall neatly under a black-and-white section of the rule book.

Whether or not you find what you're looking for in these various publications, studying them gets you thinking along the right lines. They acknowledge the gray areas and at least provide guidelines and recommendations that will usually steer you in the right direction.

When I started umpiring almost 40 years ago, I knew the OBR book pretty well—the players and coaches thought I was knowledgeable. But there were so many contingencies I was unsure about, and when I asked other umpires, they usually quite confidently provided an authoritative answer but on follow-up questions quickly surrendered. In fact, most of the other umps I knew at that time weren't much interested in talking about rules. I think some of them were so confident in their incorrect interpretations that they were able to bluff their way successfully.

I have hardly had any sort of big-time umpiring career, and I gave up baseball for softball several years ago. But these books (and this forum) have helped make me a vastly better umpire. Interestingly, after you have done baseball for a long time, you realize how weak the supporting literature is for softball.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by greymule

But these books (and this forum) have helped make me a vastly better umpire.

I have actually found that some of the things I have learned on this forum are more advanced than what most of my colleagues are used to. That is still a compliment to this forum.

[mick]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I have actually found that some of the things I have learned on this forum are more advanced than what most of my colleagues are used to. That is still a compliment to this forum.

And you wrote, "Many of its [J/R] interpretations differ from how most umpires would rule on plays."

"Colleagues" and "most umpires" are the same guys aren't they.
I detect a common theme.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by mick

And you wrote, "Many of its [J/R] interpretations differ from how most umpires would rule on plays."

"Colleagues" and "most umpires" are the same guys aren't they.
I detect a common theme.

My bad. I should have said that the J/R manual differs from how some umpires would rule on plays.

[BretMan]

And, perhaps, instead of "many" of the interpretations you should have said "a few".

There are hundreds of interpretations in the Jaksa/Roder manual. Only a tiny fraction of those were ever different from the OBR or Evans rulings. Some of those have been edited in recent editions so that they are now all in agreement.

How many of the interpretations are different today? A couple? A few?

Certainly not "many".

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by BretMan

And, perhaps, instead of "many" of the interpretations you should have said "a few".

There are hundreds of interpretations in the Jaksa/Roder manual. Only a tiny fraction of those were ever different from the OBR or Evans rulings. Some of those have been edited in recent editions so that they are now all in agreement.

How many of the interpretations are different today? A couple? A few?

Certainly not "many".

That's the other thing. Why do they charge us $60 for a book that literally falls apart, then come out with a more correct version the next year?

[mick]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

That's the other thing. Why do they charge us $60 for a book that literally falls apart, then come out with a more correct version the next year?

My J/R is dated 1995.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

while I agree with that conclusion (and the conclusion applies to all non-official publications, including JEA and BRD), I think J/R is right on most of the items you mentioned.

Like Ivory soap, 99.4%.

The only problem with using J/R or BRD to become more knowledgeable is the coaches don't even read the regular rule book and don't believe you when you quote from a resource, any resource.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DG

Like Ivory soap, 99.4%.

The only problem with using J/R or BRD to become more knowledgeable is the coaches don't even read the regular rule book and don't believe you when you quote from a resource, any resource.

That's not a problem with using the resource, it's a problem with coaches.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

while I agree with that conclusion (and the conclusion applies to all non-official publications, including JEA and BRD), I think J/R is right on most of the items you mentioned.

I got into trouble for calling interference when the batter swung and missed at a pitch, and his swing carried his upper body over home plate, causing a bad throw from the catcher. To me, this is extraordinary movement even if it was inside the batter's box.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I got into trouble for calling interference when the batter swung and missed at a pitch, and his swing carried his upper body over home plate, causing a bad throw from the catcher. To me, this is extraordinary movement even if it was inside the batter's box.

Perhaps you got into trouble for calling interference according to OBR rules. Who ran into who? Let it go when a right-handed catcher runs into the batter.

This would have been more difficult to criticize using NCAA rules. The batter is not allowed to cross-over the box while a play is being made.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I got into trouble for calling interference when the batter swung and missed at a pitch, and his swing carried his upper body over home plate, causing a bad throw from the catcher. To me, this is extraordinary movement even if it was inside the batter's box.

You don't need J/R to make that correct (as I envision the play) call -- you can get that ruling right out of OBR.

Sometimes umpires "get in trouble" by making the right call. It's part of the job.