The dictionary defines it as: judge, referee, arbiter, arbitrator, mediator, moderator.
Is it a vocation, i.e. trade, profession, calling, employment, field, job, occupation, work, art, business, career, discipline, gig, labor, line, livelihood, pursuit, role, schtick, specialty, task.
If you called a licensed electrician to your home to rewire your home, they would expect to do the job according to current standards and/or codes. As would the licensing bureau and insurance industry.
Would you really want this person to modfy the standards/codes just because you are paying the bill?
In that same vain, baseball has a set of rules with current interpretations which umpire's try to learn and understand and apply to todays games.
But, with the onslaught of modified rules, are umpire's who follow these modifications contributing to the lack of understanding and the proper application of the current legitimate rules by players, coaches and fans alike?

"But, with the onslaught of modified rules, are umpire's who follow these modifications contributing to the lack of understanding and the proper application of the current legitimate rules by players, coaches and fans alike?"

Rog, Not quite understanding your question here!

Who is making these rule modifications? I know in my profession that if the Code governing bodies are modifying the rules, then I better be following them.

If the individual leagues are modifying the rules within the spirit of the game to accomdate their league, and it is accepted and enforced consistently in that league, whats wrong with that?

An electrical code can be the matter of life and death and is the exact reason why it is regulated. This is totaly different than the rules (or code) established for a sport or game. I think these things are at different ends of the spectrum.

Rog's example may be from the opposite end of the spectrum, but he makes a valid point that merits discussion.

Yes, wiring a house that is not in accordance with the local code, can and will bring about "BAD JU JU". However, look at it like this, we have standards that are generally published by an authoritative body that we use to guide our actions. Because this authoritative body is not present in our corner of the world and does not understand our "unique" situations, we tend to modify this code to more readily conform to our situation. Rog's point is that we have done this for baseball, just as some might do for electrical wiring.

Rog, I think you have a valid arguement for standardization amoung the professional ranks. However, 99% of us partake of this game from a non-professional aspect, be it rec league, high school or college. Each level of ball has specific goals and ideals, based upon the level at which it is played. For instance, high school ball (in most places) is played using FED rules. For the same reason that you don't wire your house the same way you would wire your baseball field, what is the harm in modifying the rules for the enjoyment of the game by those that are participating? I will point out that there should be a starting point, i.e. OBR, but how do we disservice the game by saying 12 year old kids should not play on 90' fields?

Just my humble opinion,

Yes I would!
 

I cannot think of a reason that I would want my house wired differently from the code. But if I could think of a reason, I would want the electrician to do it because I was the one paying the bill.

And if he would not? Then I would fire him and find someone who would do what I want. Incorrect wiring can have fatal consequences so it is a poor analogy to umpiring. Bad umpiring has no consequences that a rational person would worry about. (Then again, who said coaches and parents were rational. They can be more dangerous than bad wiring.!) However, like the electrician above, I would fire the umpire that did not call the set of rules that I wanted. The only reason that I might be forced to live with the umpire is that there is a shortage of umpires. Electricians, on the other hand, are not problem.

Peter

<i> Originally posted by Rog </i>

<b> The dictionary defines it as: judge, referee, arbiter, arbitrator, mediator, moderator.
Is it a vocation, i.e. trade, profession, calling, employment, field, job, occupation, work, art, business, career, discipline, gig, labor, line, livelihood, pursuit, role, schtick, specialty, task.
If you called a licensed electrician to your home to rewire your home, they would expect to do the job according to current standards and/or codes. As would the licensing bureau and insurance industry.
Would you really want this person to modfy the standards/codes just because you are paying the bill?
In that same vain, baseball has a set of rules with current interpretations which umpire's try to learn and understand and apply to todays games.
But, with the onslaught of modified rules, are umpire's who follow these modifications contributing to the lack of understanding and the proper application of the current legitimate rules by players, coaches and fans alike? </b>

Rog IMO you are comparing apples to oranges. Using the electrician example, the reason there are codes is so that your house doesn't blow up and kill one's family, that's a heck of a lot different than changing baseball rules.

In addition, I believe most posters said they would not jeopardize safety issues, but the rest of the rules who cares. For example; suppose there was a league that said: a player doesn't have to wear a batting helmet. That's a different story because no game FEE is worth my house or to see someone get seriously injured, but

if a league wants to have a ground rule that says a player only gets a one base award from a throw anywhere that goes into DBT, who really cares. How's that hurting anyone or jeopardizing the game of baseball. It's the same rule for everybody.

I really don't know what your hang-up is on local rules. No rule book is Utopia. The OBR rule-book has some 75-100 inconsistencies already. FED / NCAA are not perfect either but what is.

As long as a league is for the most part well behaved, pays a good game FEE why do you care what rules they use (excluding safety)?

No 2 leagues are alike anyway. They all have their nuances.

I agree with Peter and TEE on this issue. They are the customers so give them what they want. If a particular rule is <i> iffy </i>, we interpret the best way we can and let that particular league worry about it.

If they get enough comlaints etc. they will change it. Rules are constantly changing anyway. Some say FED rules are strange (I am not one of those), so are you going to refuse a HS assignment because you do not like FED?



Pete Booth

I think we need to start calling you, "Rog-et"!

Good one, Jim! :D

Just say "No"
 

Roger,

I empathize.

I work FED, NCAA, MSBL, MABL, NABF, PONY, American Legion and very infrequently, Babe Ruth. All of these have some modifications to THE rules of baseball. But the modifications made by the national bodies of these organizations usually "add" something to enhance the rules for their level and needs. Most often these modifications concern safety or increased participation. (Although, sometimes we have to wonder about some of the FED modifications)

The goofy modifications that some coaches insist on, or that are created at times by local boards of a national organization are another matter. They usually "change" or "delete" a rule. Some of these include attempts to bring baseball myths to reality. "We have a must slide rule in this game, ump," I've been told. "No, you don't," I've responded.

I take the time to check out the rules of all the "leagues" I call. I won't take a game if I don't know or have access to their rules, national and local. Thus armed, I don't allow coaches to *******ize the game any further than their national organization already has.

If a coach, or even a local board, insists that the hands are part of the bat, I will not call their game. To do so would only serve to perpetuate a myth and screw up another 20 to 30 players' recollection of a rule. I'm not afraid to turn down a game when I know a local board has changed all the ground rules and base awards.

The problem comes when some umpires become willing to call nonsense rules to get a game. Some of us will do anything a coach wants for a game fee.

Perhaps the profession you should have chosen for your analogy is prostitution.

What the H**?
 

I can't believe this site won't allow the use of the word "*******ize": to lower the worth or condition of, to debase.

Talk about censorship run amok. Why anyone supposedly in the publishing business would allow such rigid software to make their editorial decisions is unfathomable.

Re: What the H**?
 

Yeah. If we could only get computers to make a judgment call.

Wait a minute, what am I saying? If they could do that, we'd all be out of a job!

I think Rog and Garth have a valid point. Most local rules are poorly written and usually cause more problems than they fix. I wish all the national organizations would do their rulebooks like PONY. Use straight OBR and do an extra book of age specific rules.

<i> Originally posted by Michael Taylor </i>

<b> Use straight OBR and do an extra book of age specific rules. </b>

Michael, what do we do with the 100 inconsistencies that are there already? Individuals talk about local leagues making up their own rules, however, Strict OBR is not sqeaky clean either.

Example: in Strict OBR, there is no such thing as Verbal Interference. Talk about controversy. Let's say someone is yelling at another player from the dugout etc. You might be able to eject the individual, but according to strict OBR = No OUT

ok you might say let's adopt a rule (since you said age specific), that allows verbal interference. What's the difference between a league adopting a rule that allows verbal interference from one that says any ball going into DBT is only a 1 base award. To me they are similar.

We can go on and on.

As long as the league supplies whatever rules they want (again excluding safety), I do not know what the big hub-bub is. For those that don't like <b> Special Rules </b> they wouldn't be working too much where I live. Each league has <i> special rules </i> that are unique to them.

If a particular rule does spark controversy it's not our problem. We simply interpret the best way we can, and if the directors of that league get enough complaints, they will change it.

As long as they are well behaved (limited problems), I couldn't care less what rules they play by. Also, as least in summer ball, most leagues use a mixture of both OBR / FED and NCAA. If you are not <b> flexible </b> you don't work.

Pete Booth

My point is Pony has a seperate book that lays out all the different age brackets, field sizes, and other proprietory rules. Babe Ruth and LL incorporate their's into the book and elliminate the casebook comments. It makes for even more confusion. Then each local BOD have to throw in their half baked local rules that can and many times create more trouble than what they were trying to fix.
As far as the problems with OBR itself we have many interps and tradition to take care of most of the problems in it. Many times with local rules not all coaches get copies and most umps don't. Then they are asked to try and interpret something that doesn't make sense to start with.
As to changing base award rules, aren't you doing a kid a disservice for not teaching him the correct rules but some *******ized version.