Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There are certain duties that the R and not the U(s) should be doing. They are clearly listed in the rules. Having an R who actually adheres to the rules and does his duties doesn’t make him a jerk. One can handle things by the book in a nice way.
Generally the R is the most experienced or knowledgeable member of a crew and has been designated the R to display that through quality judgment in necessary situations. To have someone else step in and make those decisions probably isn’t best for the game or the postgame reports/complaints that may arise.
So I don’t see the problem with letting the designated person, the Referee, handle these matters. I do that when I’m am umpire. I will give the R info and he can apply it as he desires. When I’m the R, I listen to input from the U(s) and make the best decision that I can.
Personally, I wouldn’t want an Umpire correcting fouls or some other disputed item in the scorebook when I’m the R. That can only cause trouble for me.
|
"If you notice a clock error, get it fixed. I don't need you to come to me first."
That is the line used by almost every R in almost every pregame I've ever been in. Correcting the clock is not a "quality judgment."
In the case of the maverick official I referred to earlier, the only thing he was good at was taking the tests and memorizing the books. In South Carolina, that was good enough to be an R on some of the best games in the state. Once we got on the court he had no idea how to apply the intent of the rules, no play-calling skills, no concept of game management, and no ability to communicate with coaches and players. Guess which kind of official 99% of us would rather work with?