Pine Tar and the Infield Fly Rule: An Umpire’s Perspective on the Hart-Dworkin Jurisprudential Debate William D. Blake, Ph.D.1 Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Indiana University, Indianapolis (IUPUI)
[email protected] Abstract: What is law? Though on its face this question seems simple, it remains an incredibly controversial one to legal theorists. One prominent jurisprudential debate of late occurred between H.L.A. Hart, a positivist, and Ronald Dworkin, an interpretivist. While positivism, at its core, holds the law is a set of authoritative commands, Dworkin rejects this reflexive approach and instructs judges to incorporate and advance communal norms and morals in their decisions. In baseball, umpires utilize both legal theories, depending on the type of rule they are asked to interpret or enforce. I conclude that, like umpires, most citizens are not dogmatic about either legal theory. 1 I wish to thank Justice George Nicholson of the California Court of Appeal for encouraging my participation at this Symposium. I am eternally grateful to former Major Leaguer Jim Abbott for taking the time to respond to my questions. Finally, to the 13 year-old pitcher whom I discuss in this paper: your courage and enthusiasm are inspiring, but, for Pete's sake, please practice coming set. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2403586 Bill Klem, one of the 2 first umpires inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, once wrongly called a runner out at home plate. A lucky newspaper photographer snapped a shot, which demonstrated Klem’s mistake. The next day, reporters demanded to know how the batter could be out in light of the incontrovertible photographic evidence.