Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
> Now there is a school of thought which says that only means "final" in
> the sense intended by the following sentence which spells out that
> players, managers, coaches or substitutes may not object to such
> decisions.
Yes, in fact that school of thought can count me as one of its students. Reading the rule in its full context leaves virtually no doubt as to its intent. Here's the rule without the snippage that proves quite inconvenient to your argument:
9.02 (a) Any umpire's decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.
|
Dave, I'm sure you and I are never going to agree. You bleated earlier about whether people could simply agree to disagree. Well, here you are Dave. A2D
However, it is important that certain false impressions created by your post are corrected.
1. From my words reprinted above by YOU, which include a paraphrased version of the second sentence in that provision, and the complete quote from OBR 9.02(a) also reprinted by YOU - can ANYONE see the slightest difference or adduce any intent to deny the existence or content of the second sentence of that provision? Clearly the answer is NO. There is barely a gnats ninny worth of difference between my paraphrase and the actual provision. Yet, Dave, the implication of your emboldened phrase "without the snippage" is that I was somehow selectively quoting the provision to bolster my position! Dave, I leave such underhanded tactics to you.
2. For the benefit of readers who are NOT disposed to view my posts with some sort of bias or prejudice, here is my analysis of OBR 9.02(a):
(a) In an addendum to the 1897 playing rules, on the subject of judgement decisions, the following instruction was issued to umpires -
"
Coachers have heretofore been a disturbing element to the umpire. Rules 52 and 60 provide just what his and what your duties are. These rules are mandatory, not discretionary, if you allow them to be violated you become the chief culprit and do not properly perform the duties of your position. Bear in mind that you are not responsible for the creation of the rules or the penalties prescribed by them."
That requires that umpires not accept even "questions" from coaches on judgement decisions. These decisions are FINAL. Only matters of possible rule misapplication may be questioned. Coaches who follow a "What did you see" question with "Well I saw this and I want you to check with your partner" are NOW arguing/questioning/disputing a judgement decision. If you not only ALLOW that, but PARTICIPATE in it by going to your partner for help, then you have not only breached the rule you have encouraged the participant to breach the rule. As the above addendum says "you have not properly performed (sic) the duties of your position". In other words,
you didn't do your job! How clear does this have to be? Such actions are ILLEGAL!
(b) The current rule is in 2 parts. Part 1 says that judgement decisions are final. It makes no reference to any exceptions such as "
except for the umpire who made the original decision". Final means F I N A L. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnell's. Part 2 of this provision says that players, coaches, managers and substitutes may not object to judgement decisions. That is NOT inconsistent with, nor does it limit the generality of, Part 1 of the provision.
3. Contrary to Mr Hensley's assertion, I contend that the intent and the language of OBR 9.02(a) is to prevent ANYONE from changing the umpire's judgement decision INCLUDING the umpire who made that decision. FINAL means FINAL for everyone. If an umpire cannot change his own judgement decision
by rule, that removes one more temptation for the participants to argue about or disagree with such decisions. How hard is that to understand? The alternative is to have a "final" decision, then a Final "final" decision and perhaps even a FINAL Final "final" decision. Gimme a break!
Now, Dave, since we have agreed to disagree on the interpretation of this provision, I expect there will be no further discussion between us on this subject beyond this point.
Cheers,