On Authortative Opinion, OBR and the Internet

[Tim C]

Garth:

My list was in no way meant to be a stand alone list.

I have the same problems with Bob Pariseau (as listed by Steve) as others have with many of the "informed sources". Bob, is probably a great small diamond umpire but he has little preactical experience in working games of older players, especially college age.

Bob Jenkins is a jewel that answers short and correct but really only deals with "book listings" more than taking a wild swing at an off the wall situation.

I am not likely by Carl Childress but I have not made it my life's work to discredit him as others have. He has offered a great service to a bunch of us loser umps for many, many years and deserves respect for that if nuttin' else.

Garth, I was not trying to "pin you down." I really wanted an answer based on "yep, Tee I respect some more than others." I didn't want a rating of the rulers.

Now about Rick Roder:

Rick has been hired by the WUA to act as some kind of a rules expert on their webpage. That is great. we now have a resource that will answer even the most mundane of questions.

But I have a problem with many of Rick's personal views of the rules.

No one can argue Rick's education, experience and commitment to umpiring. We can, however, take exception to the philosophy that he uses to make rulings.

Rick is a strong supporter of the "String theory" of rulings. Rick feels that you can take several rules, tie them together and come out with a ruling. I believe that Nick Bremigan was the first to use this type logic in dealing with rules. Nick was a guest lecturer at Brinkman in '82 when I was there and there can be no argument about his depth and passion for rules. When we lost Nick we lost someone who probably one day would have actually re-written OBR.

I come from a different school that says rules stand by themselves and that is that.

I just feel we need a more consistant view of rules and rulings and I just don't know where to get it.

Tee