I can guarantee that nothing in the OBR was, is, or will ever be intended to be totally objective, as long as human beings are making the interpretations and the calls.It does seem odd that ordinary effort is not defined in other rule books. However, in a later post you admit that this definition does not guarantee a uniform standard because scorekeepers have different levels of experience to deem whether an average fielder would have made the play. OBR intends it to be an objective standard, but there is no getting around the fact it is applied subjectively.
Not intended to be objective? Take another look at the comment on the definition -
This standard, called for several times in the Official Scoring Rules (e.g., Rules 10.05(a)(3), 10.05(a)(4), 10.05(a)(6), 10.05(b)(3) (Base Hits); 10.08(b) (Sacrifices); 10.12(a)(1) Comment, 10.12(d)(2) (Errors); and 10.13(a), 10.13(b) (Wild Pitches and Passed Balls)) and in the Official Baseball Rules (e.g., Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly)), is an objective standard in regard to any particular fielder.
OBR clearly positions it as an objective standard. My previous post shows I agree that is not feasible.
I started off scoring baseball games for my son many years ago according to OBR, so I'm still fairly familiar with them and use them to fill in any gaps. For softball, I think the NFCA's ATEC guide is the best one for people that aren't knowledgeable about scoring. The NCAA softball rules are good, but a lot of people get tripped up by using the incomplete definitions for some items instead of the specific rules for them. They should remove the definitions for terms that are covered in their own section(s) (e.g. hits, errors, etc) or at least reference the other sections.