About the 234 known OBR errors

[Larry1953]

Bob Jenkins gave me some good advise just a while ago and mentioned that one of the first things they will tell you at an umpiring clinic is that there are 234 some-odd known errors/inconsistencies in OBR. I'd just like what some of the more egregious ones are

[bob jenkins]

Well, it starts with 1.01 (see if you can figure it out) and goes from there.

Evans dosuments them (but I don't know if there's a "list"), if you can get a hold of that.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Well, it starts with 1.01 (see if you can figure it out) and goes from there.

Evans dosuments them (but I don't know if there's a "list"), if you can get a hold of that.

Well, aside from calling baseball a game - no it's not it's LIFE golldarnit!, most teams have more than 9 players, and if the DH allowed, there are 10 in the actual lineup if that was what the definition was driving at. More clues! More clues!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, aside from calling baseball a game - no it's not it's LIFE golldarnit!, most teams have more than 9 players, and if the DH allowed, there are 10 in the actual lineup if that was what the definition was driving at. More clues! More clues!

Yes, according to the rules we should be sending away any extra players exceeding nine. Where are all the "call it by the letter of the rules" people on that one?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Y Where are all the "call it by the letter of the rules" people on that one?

Probably content in the knowledge that later in the rules, it states that leagues are allowed to utilize a designate hitter.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, aside from calling baseball a game - no it's not it's LIFE golldarnit!, most teams have more than 9 players, and if the DH allowed, there are 10 in the actual lineup if that was what the definition was driving at. More clues! More clues!

Contact Jim for the list. Time and space don't permit that here.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Bob Jenkins gave me some good advise just a while ago and mentioned that one of the first things they will tell you at an umpiring clinic is that there are 234 some-odd known errors/inconsistencies in OBR. I'd just like what some of the more egregious ones are

So if we list the errors, which we have done in the past, where will it get you? The rules are the rules and when we officiate an OBR game, errors or not, we enforce the rules as written. It's kind of like being a cop. Even if he knows the law is wrong, his job is to enforce it, not interpret it.

So don't worry about the 242 (yes, 242) iniquities in the OBR 2011 rulebook, just follow them and let the "experts" sort out the problems.

[UMP25]

But he wants them all listed NOW!!!

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by UMP25

But he wants them all listed NOW!!!

Actually I just asked for some of the more egregious ones to be listed. I know I stumbled into the wrong forum. This is a place for umpires to discuss things with umpires and I was really out of place. I can see how it was annoying.

One final observation. It is obvious that even former MLB players don't know how the rules are to be interpreted. Even rules that say things in what appears to be plain English are not always what they seem. There are gurus who publish these interpretations and they seem to be kept secret. I contend that this is not good for the game. How are coaches supposed to teach kids how to play the game when former MLB players are confused by plays and rules interpretations are kept secret? If anything, this experience has lessened my appreciation of the game. I really don't know what I am watching anymore and it is harder to get into the game. I used to think ball four earned you a walk to first. But I suppose that it not always true, depending on what edict comes down from on high. Sorry to have been such a pain.

[Tim C]

I am not sure what I hate most:

Trolls or,

What if's . . .

I know Larry fits both groups.

T

[UMP25]

But what if he's...

[TwoBits]

The rules and interpretations aren't secret, but many coaches and players don't care to know them.

Case in point: Last week I had a rec game under FED rules that ended on a text book interference call when R2 collided with F6 fielding a batted ball. Offensive coach went ballistic, complaining the fielder was in the baseline, his runner had right of way, never, EVER, seen such a bad call, yada, yada, yada. When I told him that if he would look at the list of rules myths posted at the concession stand and the rules reference that supported my decision, he responded with, "Well, I'm not going to look it up!"

The rules are there for all to see, but only umpires care to read them.

[Larry1953]

Well, the interpretations are not necessarily secret, but they do seem to be locked away in a holy tabernacle that only the high priests have access to - unless you want to part with $150 for a book that may not ne available to the general public or attend some special clinic to get one. For example, I have read in a book on OBR that the PU will typically call a ball hit in back of the plate a foul ball, even if it goes into fair territory because he is blocked from a good view on most of those plays. Does that come from an umpire's manual? It is no wonder that such a convention gets *******ized by the hoi polloi into the myth that a batted ball that hits the plate is foul.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

I have read in a book on OBR that the PU will typically call a ball hit in back of the plate a foul ball, even if it goes into fair territory because he is blocked from a good view on most of those plays.

It doesn't matter where the ball hits, but it's location when it's first touched. Ergo, I don't care where it hits, but where the catcher fields it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

For example, I have read in a book on OBR that the PU will typically call a ball hit in back of the plate a foul ball, even if it goes into fair territory because he is blocked from a good view on most of those plays. Does that come from an umpire's manual?

I don't believe that any book says that. Perhaps you're misremembering something. Which book says that? It certainly does not come from an umpire manual.