Garth and others have repeatedly reminded us that it is important to understand the history of rules in order to properly interpret and apply them. I am in full agreement, and I think most umpires--including myself--do not take the time to learn/consider history. So, I ask this question: How can an umpire learn the history behind the rules and their intepretations?

One of my favorite books is "The Rules of Baseball" by David Nemec, and I have also read "Men in Blue". Books like these help some, but they are clearly not comprehensive nor systematic. So, any advice?

P-Sz

Durwood Merril, "your out, and ugly, too". Some very good insight on having some fun with the game

Pat,
 

JEA is the definitive source of the development of rules.

I am from the camp that it is insignificant for an umpire to know any rules other than those that are in place at the moment you are umpiring.

But I do research because for the heck-of-it.

(The Original & Ever Slimming),

Tee

<i> Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski </i>

<b> Garth and others have repeatedly reminded us that it is important to understand the history of rules in order to properly interpret and apply them. I am in full agreement, and I think most umpires--including myself--do not take the time to learn/consider history. So, I ask this question: How can an umpire learn the history behind the rules and their intepretations?

One of my favorite books is "The Rules of Baseball" by David Nemec, and I have also read "Men in Blue". Books like these help some, but they are clearly not comprehensive nor systematic. So, any advice? </b>


Patrick, IMO it's important to know the INTENT of a rule. Knowing the History is important but I don't think knowing History helps one apply the ruling.

Example: Let's take the Technical Balks. F1 drops the ball on the mound or F1 disengages illegally.

Now at one time or another F1 while doing those antics probably deceived a runner, however, the intent of F1 IMO is what matters in calling these TECHNICALITIES.

Suppose it's a rainy day and the ball ACTUALLY slips from F1's hands. Now we all know we HAVE to call a Balk and the only reason we call it is because everyone in the whole park KNOWS it's a balk, however, if the rule were amended for it's true intent IMO it would be a much better rule.

Same thing applies to F1 disengaging illegally. IMO who cares, yet in some instances we have to call a Balk, however, in other instances (ie; Runner not going nowhere it is recommended that you overlook).

So why History might be important, IMO it's the actual INTENT of a ruling that helps in applying it.

Pete Booth

Peter:

It is from the history of the rule that we divine intent. No where can I find a simple statement BY the rules makers of their intent. Evans includes it in his JEA, but I'm at a loss of a source in which the rules makers themselves admit what they were thinking.

Thus we would be at a total loss as to the intent you are looking for if we ignored the history of the rule: how it came about, when, how it was enforced, changes made through time, how it is taught, appeals made, rulings made, etc.

You can divine intent without a knowledge of the history unless you just take someone else's word for it.

Pete: My biggest point here is that knowing the history of a rule is a "Good Thing", regardless of any argument on what exactly we can learn from that history.

Garth & T Alan: So JEA is one source. Any others?

Chris: I also have the late Merrill's book. Fun, but not much on the history of rules...

P-Sz

Pat, gaining further knowledge is seldom a bad thing......

Still, I don't think not knowing the history would mean that someone could not understand the spirit and intent of the rule just from being exposed to the game and relying on a little CSFP. IOW, you don't have to know the history to be a good umpire. CSFP can make up for a lot of history reading..........


Freix

Like Bfair stated, knowing the history can't hurt.

I think a great example is a runner struck with a batted ball. The rules stated that the runner was out if a batted ball struck him. Knowing that, it makes it much easier to say "The runner is out when struck by a batted ball, unless..." and note the exceptions we currently have.