Pine Tar and the Infield Fly Rule: An Umpire’s Perspective on the Hart-Dworkin Jurisprudential Debate
Date
2014
Authors
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
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.
Description
Keywords
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Blake, W. (2014). Pine Tar and the Infield Fly Rule: An Umpire's Perspective on the Hart-Dworkin Jurisprudential Debate. In W. J. Simmons (Ed.), The Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture: 2013-2014. Jefferson City, NC: McFarland.
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Source
Alternative Title
Type
Book chapter