On Authortative Opinion, OBR and the Internet

[Tim C]

As umpires that primarily work games played by non-professional players we are placed in a very interesting position.

Where the National Federation of High Schools and the NCAA have a system for obtaining “official” interpretations, those who work under OBR do not have that luxury.

As a member of another umpire resource group we have been in the most interesting debate as of late:

“What position do people of “authoritative opinion” hold in the interpretation of The Official Rules of Baseball”?

We know that through the FED Rule Book, Case Book, and two mechanics manuals we know that FED has taken a stab at defining what is meant by their rules. If you add their website and the official quarterly newsletters we have a group that makes an effort to convey to their tens of thousands of umpires that work their games what is meant by their rulings.

We know that with an official NCAA Baseball Website that we can extrapolate current rulings and mechanics from one source. The NCAA also sends out very informative notifications during a sports season helping the officials of a certain sport understand just where the NCAA high-ups “want” things called.

In OBR we are left in a “never-never” land.

We have the Official Rule Book and the PBUC manual.

That’s it, that’s the LIST!

Sooooo, now we touch on “authoritative opinion.”

As near I can see there are three major authorities dealing with OBR:

Jim Evans – author of the JEA and once rumored to be involved in the potential re-write of the OBR.

Rick Roder – co-author of the Jaksa/Roder manual on professional interpretations of OBR.

Carl Childress – author of several umpire books and the definitive study of the Differences between the three major rules groups.

Bubbling close to those three would be:

Rich Marazzi – author of the Baseball Rules Corner in Baseball Digest. I list him slightly below the three only because his articles are just extrapolations of actual MLB rulings.

We then fall into what I call “Informed Opinion”.

This group has a large group of people that simply interpret the rules as a hobby. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes they are wrong.

This group includes:

Richard Siegal
Steve Ferix
Jim Porter
Warren Willson
Pete Booth

These people work endlessly trying to communicate the rules to us with little credit from those of us that work the games.

My major point to this post (I know some have all ready given up) is to say that all of us “think” we are right and many times are . . .however, everything we say (even that said by the authorities listed above) should be taken for what it is:

An “un-official” opinion taken from the information that is available that is shaded by our personal preferences and experience.

In closing, understand that most things written by the authoritative sources and informed opinion group are not “official” unless they are quoting an exact example of the position published by the keepers of that rule book.

I give huge credit to the group of people listed above that have the intestinal fortitude to place their feelings and research out for all of us to criticize.

[BJ Moose]

You are correct, that this "problem" is really only relevant to games we work under OBR.

I just finished attending our 3 day Jim Evans Camp.. and now I wished I had asked the question.

Jim mentions his "700 page rules interpretation book" several times.. (although no one ever asked where to get one).

But he also mentions the "Major League Baseball Interpretations Manual" or something to that effect.

I wonder WHAT that is? Have you heard of or seen such a thing? (You don't suppose he means J/R?)

But no one asked how to get that, either.

[GarthB]

Obviously we will all have differing opinions regarding your characterizations and categorizations, primarily those within the group you call "Informed Opinion."

The title of the group itself begs the question: "Informed by whom?"

Some of these may simply regurgitated the thought that came from one of the other groups you have listed further up the food chain, whereas others do attempt to use their experience and well developed thought process to provide truly individualized opinion. Simply exposing one's opinion for either validation or ridicule does not necessarily add any credibility to that opinion; otherwise, we'd all be geniuses.

Stating my opinion of who truly put forth unique effort would serve no positive purpose, neither would naming those I believe do not belong on the list; but I would add to your list the names of Jim Booth, Tony Peters, Jon Bible, and, believe it or not, Scott Taylor and Peter Osborne.

That said; remember that the Internet still represents a tiny fraction of amateur umpires. There are many others who, for one reason or another, have chosen not to jump down to our level.

But on to your premise.

Due to the lack of a single MLB "approved" authority; we have no choice but to consider the alternatives. We could, I suppose, pick one and follow his/its thought blindly forward. Some of us do. I've heard over and over that "If you accept the PBUC on this, then you must accept it on that." You may substitute, Evans, Roder (WUA) or Childress for PBUC in that statement.

In my opinion, that would be foolish. While it is messy and at times ugly, I suggest that the cafeteria approach, adding one's experience and a logical thought process (some refer to it as "common sense") to the mix, works better.

There are times when Evans makes far more sense and is in tune with the tradition of the game than Roder. There are times when Roder makes his case better than PBUC. There are times when one's own experience, understanding of how the game is played and logical thought process will assist him well.

How do we select, on any given subject where they may differ, one from the other? That's where one's experience, thought process and understanding of the game become even more important.

Any Internet umpire can quote verbatim Evans, Roder, Childress, or for that matter, Booth, Bible or Willson. (And several do) I look to those who do not start with quotes from the so-called authorities, but rather start from the point of the intention of a rule, the history of the rule, the application of the rule and the most obvious consequence of the application of the rule. Then I look for support of their thought process more so than support of their end result.

When everything lines up nice and tidy, it's easy. When it doesn't, well, again, that where experience, an understanding of how the game is played and a logical thought process comes in.

To steal a thought from an acquaintance: If, through this messy process, I can be consistent and confident that my ruling is right in any given game situation to the point that I can bring the others along with me, I have the right answer.


[Edited by GarthB on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 11:43 PM]

[Tim C]

As always a well thought out response:

I ask you the following:

Do you agree that Evans, Roder and Childress are "authoritative opinons"?

Do any of the three carry more weight with you than the others?

While I don't remember Jon Bible commenting on rules issues I do respect him greatly, dose that mean he knows more about OBR than Warren Willson?

I also recognize Peter O. as an important "source" . . . I do not list him as an "informed source" as to rulings, so does Peter know more about rules than Jim Porter?

Are Jim Booth and Pete Booth the same person? Or is it Jim Booth and Jim Mills that are the same person? Just kidding guys!

So if you have two sources that disagree on a certain play (Example that I pick out of thin air - one source says that after a pitched ball bounces and is foul tipped that it can be legally caught just as any other foul tip and the other camp says that once the ball bounces it is no longer in flight and cannot be caught and is therefore always a foul ball) how do we find the "correct" answer?

And finally:

"Why is the history of a rule important to the most current interpretation?"

Respectfully,

(The Original & Ever Slimming)

Tee

[chris s]

A lot of it comes down to regional differences. If I quote Childress here, people are asking "who the..." J/R, nobodys heard of them. I had a big stink when I enforced the FED pitching rules a couple years ago. Look at the pitcher throwing to 2cd to retire a runner busting to 2cd. "F1 throwing to unoccupied", boy did I hear that alot!OBR has a bunch of discrepencys, working PONY secs and regions under the watchful eye of the "white coats" was nuts. Ask them an interp and get conflicting answers. Point taken, obr needs something better...

[Tim C]

Welcome BACK!

Tee

[chris s]

Originally posted by Tim C
Welcome BACK!


Tee

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why thank you Tee! I be working only minimumly FED, a bit of JUCO and watching my 12 year old daughter become a mean *** pitcher in asa minors, she's a southpaw. Football is a new passion, what a rush, for me. Time to spend with my children and wife.Strikes and outs!!!!

[chris s]

Hey Tee, still got that plate coat? I put on at least/> 30 Lbs!!!!!

[GarthB]

Tim:

You are trying to get me to do that which I am trying so hard to avoid.

Any comparison of those whom you list as "informed opinion" will serve only to start a pissing contest. It matters not my personal opinion of Porter, Freix, Booth, Booth, Willson, Osborne, Taylor, et al.

A problem in judging their fitness for our needs lies in what you mean as Informed opinion. Informed implies that they get much of their opinion from the thoughts of others. Who then are these others? Do we not have to consider their sources when we decide what we will take from their opinions?

Additionally, I give added credibility to my perception of why some of the folks do what they do. Several, the more original thinkers, usually, I believe are trying to further the activity. Some others, on the other hand have fallen victim to believing their own press clippings. I give additional weight to those in the first group.

So yes, I do give varying degrees of weight to the names on your and my lists…everything from near zero to 90 on a hundred scale. But again, I don't think it serves any positive purpose to identify who gets what.

Now to your other questions:

Do you agree that Evans, Roder and Childress are "authoritative opinions"?

Do any of the three carry more weight with you than the others?

Yes, I agree that Roder, Evans and Childress should be considered as having authoritative opinion; and in my cafeteria style of researching interpretations each one could prove to be more beneficial than the others from time to time depending on the subject matter and the reason for the research.

While I don't remember Jon Bible commenting on rules issues I do respect him greatly, dose that mean he knows more about OBR than Warren Willson?

Jon Bible, before becoming the previous NCAA UIC worked as a pro for several years. In some instances his take, particularly in the application of a rule, in my cafeteria, would be more of more practical significance than that of Warrens.

I also recognize Peter O. as an important "source" . . . I do not list him as an "informed source" as to rulings, so does Peter know more about rules than Jim Porter?

Osborne, who elicits great emotion from many people and that, unfortunately has lead to a diminished influence, also should be respected from the practical standpoint, more so than some others you have listed.

So if you have two sources that disagree on a certain play (Example that I pick out of thin air - one source says that after a pitched ball bounces and is foul tipped that it can be legally caught just as any other foul tip and the other camp says that once the ball bounces it is no longer in flight and cannot be caught and is therefore always a foul ball) how do we find the "correct" answer?

In this particular example, what makes it even more vexing is that we have Jim Evans, a former pro umpire and umpire trainer extraordinaire on one side (along with a black and white reading of the rule book) and Rick Roder, who is currently evaluating pro umpires, and who has cited that he has the agreement of "several" working pro-umpires, on the other side.

First we need to bear in mind that despite appearance to the contrary, the rules of baseball are not stagnant. Even when no literal change has been made, we find at times that a practical change has been made. As in other arenas, practice often precedes "authorized" change. That's not to say that is what is happening here, but it might.

Certainly history and a verbatim reading of the rulebook favor Evans. Modern practice at the ML level MAY favor Roder.

After having deliberated on this a great deal and reading the opinions of many, many umpires whom I respect. I find it more consistent with my cafeteria plus logical thought formula to accept Evans' view, particularly at the amateur level, where, quite often, the game is a bit more "pure."

Roder may well win out at the pro level, but at 50 + years, my chances of being called up to the pros are slightly below those of the Army taking me back. I'll go with Evans.

And finally:

"Why is the history of a rule important to the most current interpretation?"

As, I stated before, the rules of baseball are not stagnant. They do evolve, usually slowly, but a times abruptly. The history of rules in practice, especially during the changes, gives us our best idea of the intent of the rules makers.

Despite Jim Evans' comments in the JEA wherein he attributes intent to the rules makers, I can find no direct written material in which the rules makers actually state their intent. We divine this by the reviewing the practice of the art of umpiring, or rule enforcement over time. (History)

Thus the history of the rule and its application, even if a change in philosophy has taken place, will lead us to where we are today and to a correct call, unless of course we determine that we are the ones to begin the process of change. I personally don't see myself in the light.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 04:30 PM]

[Bfair]

The list of "informed opinions" (of which Tee so politely included me) is relatively meaningless. I would certainly include Bob Pariseau and Bob Jenkins atop the list and add to it Dave Hensley, Jim Mills, and Garth. Although Tony Peters is highly knowledgeable and respected, he doesn't post openly on the boards, yet many would benefit if he would choose to do so. Jon Bible demands respect merely by his personal knowledge and achievment, and he never fails to lose that respect by always answering in a gracious and helpful manner.

As Garth mentioned, this group brings to the table for the most part the citings of the other authoritative sources related to direct rule interpretation. Yet the discussions include that which is not printed black and white in the rulebooks---and that's handling situations and, at times, overlooking minor infractions for the levels we call. And while in our discussions we may have located issues not specifically addressed by the rules, it's still well understood that our opinions carry little weight in determining any official ruling. After receiving rulings from elsewhere, we then find that at times we were on the right side of the issue, and at other times that we were on the wrong side.

Because the PBUC rulings represent rulings from an official professional organization, I accept their rulings at this time as official interpretation. J/R, JEA, Roder, Evans, and WUA are merely authoritative opinion. Not surprising to most who know me, I'd not include Childress in the list of authoritative opinions. While he may be good at writing books and getting them published, there have been many errors of author self-interpretation within The BRD. IMO, he is far better at reporting rulings than he is at making them. As I've stated before, I have a considerable list of over 20 unaddressed issues over the past couple years for which rulings were obtained by NCAA, FED, PBUC, and MLB.com that have proven Childress wrong. His numerous and continued "misses" have proven to me not to look to him for interpretation, but merely as a reporter of what others interpret. IMO, he fits better atop the group of "informed opinions."

With the advent of the available rulings over the internet by MLB.com and the WUA, it makes it easy for us to obtain authoritative opinion from high level authorities. Roder, the respondent for WUA, has indicated that at least on his more controversial issues he polls MLB umpires and administrators, including the likes of Tom Lepperd and/or Ralph Nelson. It makes it relatively easy to obtain highly authoritative opinion for anyone---something that Childress seemingly once monopolized and aided him in his publications.

When no official interpretation exists, I look to the authoritative opinions to see if the issue is addressed. If addressed by only one, I accept it. If addressed differently by several, I accept that which seems most logical to me in application for the level I officiate.


Just my opinion,

Freix


BTW, add Tee to the list, but be careful of his IIITBTSB syndrome............

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 06:39 PM]

[GarthB]

Because the PBUC rulings represent rulings from an official professional organization, I accept their rulings at this time as official interpretation.

Do you accept EVERY and EACH ruling made by PBUC, even those which differ from Roder and Evans?

Secondly, I see some redundancy in your list. J/R, Roder and WUA are for all practical purposes one and the same.

[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

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB

Do you accept EVERY and EACH ruling made by PBUC, even those which differ from Roder and Evans?

Garth, offhand I can't think of much that significantly differs from Roder and Evans. I suppose the one I can think of offhand is PBUC stating Type B obstruction should run to completion if the the obstructed runner gets in a rundown, whereas J/R would kill the play at that point. And yes, I think I'd run with PBUC, but couldn't really tell you until put in the situation---which hasn't happened yet. Can you specify other differences that are not quickly coming to mind?

For the most part, Roder and Evans offer greater insight in detail than that which is typically offered by PBUC. IMO, that provides better understanding not just of what, but of why. I think Evans is more apt to disagree with Roder than either of them to disagree with PBUC.


Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Jim Mills


Nearly all of us are hybrids anyway, varying only in degree.

I agree with that statement, Jim, and have often said that the decisions you make on what you decide to overlook will have significant impact on how you are viewed as an umpire. While I was once far more by the book than I am now, I have learned to overlook more based primarily on the level of play and the expectations of those involved.

Everyone always wants an umpire to rule by the book when it's the opponents that have committed the infraction. It's not understood when the violation is against your team. It's good umpiring when the call goes against the opponents, but it's nitpickin' when against your favorites. Thus, the development of the hybrids based on spirit and intent.


Freix