Missed Home

[DG]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

I have never heard of the Relaxed or Unrelaxed... that is a Jaska and Roder thing... please show me that in the OBR rules, NCAA rules..

If you depend only on the rule books you will never be a good umpire. You must get supplemental study materials that explain in greater detail, and/or explain what is not explained by the written rules.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by DG

If you depend only on the rule books you will never be a good umpire. You must get supplemental study materials that explain in greater detail, and/or explain what is not explained by the written rules.

I actually don't think this is true.... BTW I have a CCA manual, both PBUC's, and the MLB umpire Manual, NFHS rules by topic.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

I actually don't think this is true.... BTW I have a CCA manual, both PBUC's, and the MLB umpire Manual, NFHS rules by topic.

On a philoshophical note, DG's statement is rather bold.
The fact you have them proves his point very well.

[greymule]

Fed did have an "accidental force play," where a fielder with the ball could get an out if he happened to kick dirt off a base that a runner had been forced to when he missed it. But this wouldn't have applied to the play in the OP. (Of course, Fed also went through a period when, for missed bases, umpires simply called outs, without any appeal.) The accidental force play derived from the way Fed wanted umpires to call the play in which the BR beats the throw to 1B but misses the bag and is five steps down the RF line when F3 gloves the ball. In OBR, of course, the call is safe and look for the appeal; in Fed, the call used to be "out." Pete explained above how they now rule.

In terms of OBR rules, there are uncountable plays for which correct decisions require knowledge of supplemental materials. We could all cite play after play for which reliance on the rule book alone would be futile.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by greymule

We could all cite play after play for which reliance on the rule book alone would be futile.

Prior to reading this thread I'd have agreed with you, but apparently not all could do this.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by SAump

On a philoshophical note, DG's statement is rather bold.
The fact you have them proves his point very well.

I have had these books since I started to Umpire.... But I simply said, and I could be wrong, but you dont need these books to be a good umpire, simply knowing the rules and when to apply them is all you need. Those books help us to become better umpires, they also help us understand and interpret the rules in a better way. Which is why in a few days I will buy the J/R manual, as It is the only one I currently do not own.

[greymule]

"You don't need these books to be a good umpire"

"Those books help us to become better umpires"

non sequitur

[Matt]

Originally Posted by greymule

"You don't need these books to be a good umpire"

"Those books help us to become better umpires"

non sequitur

No, it's not. I think you mean it's a contradiction, which it is also not.

I don't need to go to a professional school to be a good umpire. A professional school helps me to be a better umpire.

I doubt you'll disagree with those statements, nor is one intended to support the other.

[greymule]

It is something of a contradiction, since a good umpire should want to become a better umpire and use every means at his disposal to improve his performance. Therefore, he would need the books. But since B does not follow from A—and many would argue that A is false to begin with—the statement is also a non sequitur. Of course, we probably differ on the meaning of "good" in terms of umpiring.

If all you have is the OBR book, how are you going to call the play in which the runner from 2B, on a ground ball to short, stops in front of F6 to block his vision, and then, with no contact made, continues toward 3B just before the ball bounces up and hits F6 in the nose?

The "good" umpire—the one with only the OBR book and without the interpretive guides—could certainly call the runner out for interference. The "good" umpire could argue that the runner "hinder[ed] a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball," that by intentionally positioning himself in the way, he committed an act that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." The "good" umpire would follow the book and make the wrong call.

Without the interpretive guides, you're going to call a lot of plays the wrong way. A good umpire does not call a lot of plays the wrong way.

There are dozens more plays—real-life plays, not third-world plays—that require knowledge not in the rule book.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

... Which is why in a few days I will buy the J/R manual, as It is the only one I currently do not own.

Alert #1: 2008 BRD available.
Alert #2: 2008 J/R available.
$9.99 plus S&H now on Ebay
umpire book, Books items on eBay.com
May no one outbid you. Good luck!
Else, may each of these books find a good home.