On the history behind the rules...

[Patrick Szalapski]

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

[chris s]

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

[Tim C]

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

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

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?


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

[GarthB]

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.

[Patrick Szalapski]

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

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
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.

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

[devilsadvocate]

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.