Of course, it is effective. Should an umpire ignore a ruling because s/he cannot find it? Shouldn't an umpire review all the rules, not just go looking for one when s/he needs it?


Personally, I don't think paragraphs 8 & 9 need be anywhere in the book. I do, however, believe there should be a definition of "base" and "double base" somewhere in the rules other than the dimensions

I didn't pick up on anyone ignoring any rulings. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't have a photographic memory. I remember some things, and some things better than others. Some things get muddled because I do 2 sanctions. Only 2. My brain would probably short circuit if I tried doing more.

Again, I can't speak for everyone, but I do review all the rules. And when I apply them in a game, I'm usually pretty confident about what I've done. But occasionally, I get to wonder if I had it right - either on my own or because a coach questioned something. Or maybe I confused it with the other hat I wear. Then I go try to find it in the book(s). Usually the index helps, but sometimes I can't put my finger on it quickly enough. My book is dog-eared and highlighted all over the place. And I carry it forward from year to year. (Probably by 2066, every passage will be highlighted and I won't be able to find a darn thing.)

So yeah, I guess I will go looking for a rule when I need one cuz they just don't all fit into the memory stick. I recall seeing it, reading it, but I don't recall where it lives. You've suggested on occasion that I check Rule Supplements. That's a great suggestion and has clarified some things for me. I know, for instance, that a batter can carry the bat all around the bases if he so chooses. I had a partner tell a batter he couldn't do that and not to do it again. I re-educated him between innings and discussed it after the game. Hopefully he'll remember it if he ever needs to again. Not sure he'll know where to find it, though.

That is why one of the first things a clinician should point out to a newbie is the Index.

Ahhh, the old argument of rule book errors, omissions, conflicts, etc. They aren't just found in the ASA book. Every book has them. As a quick example, look at the NFHS book under 3-5. It's headlined COACHING. And yet, under Articles 5 and 6, the book refers to offensive team personnel, not coaches. Wouldn't those articles be better suited under rule 3-6, which talks about Bench and Field conduct?

As for the OP, I'm really surprised the discussion went any further once you pointed out to the coach 8-2-N-8. It clearly says the runner is out when he/she fails to tag up on a caught fly ball, and the defense appeals using either bag. Regardless of where it is in the book, it's in there. Yeah, perhaps all of 8-2-N deserves its own section, just like it does in the Fed book under 8-10, to be less confusing to the reader. But if a rule clearly says something and it just happens to be "misplaced" in the book, that doesn't make the rule null and void.