All;
There is a long recent thread here that discusses whether or not it is fair (sportsmanlike) to intentionally walk a kid in Little Leauge baseball. During the course of the thread, there are a lot of insults (excuse me, I mean good entertainment) thrown back and forth over the following issue:
Someone in the thread stated that he might bend the rules a bit depending on the situation and the league. His stated purpose for all the this was to make the game more fun (fair) for the kids. This idea is not new although it has been losing favor in recent years.
Thirty years ago when I umpired my first game, most of the big dogs operated this way. It's what made them big dogs. Their knowledge of when to bend the rules and when to change the rules cemented their hold on the top of the big dog pile. Little dogs not only had to learn the written rules, they had to learn all of the unwritten rules. This had the effect of extending the big dogs career and keeping the little dogs in their place.
The results were even more insidious (from an umpire career point of view) than one might guess. The big dog would bend a rule in a certain situation and the teams, coaches, etc. would say what a great job he was doing. The little dog would bend the exact same rule, in the exact same league, in the exact same situation, and all hell would break loose. It was because the big dog had the stature to alter a rule that the little dog did not have. Likewise, if the little dog enforced the rules as written, he was also a bad umpire. Little dogs were in a lose/lose situation.
Furthermore, these unwritten codes were (are) different in every league and every section of the country. A big dog was never mobile. If he tried to move to a new state, he started at the bottom of the little dog pile as he attempted to master the all the new nuances of the unwritten rules in his area.
This was a very good deal for big dogs. This was a very bad deal for up and coming wannabes.
At the NCAA level, Dave Yeast and company have been working mightily to end this policy. I have noticed a big change in the last five years. Now, it's the written rules and official interpretations that get a big dog ahead. Seven or eight years ago, it was tough to find a balk called at the NCAA level. If you did call one, you were labeled a high school umpire (read: little dog) and a s$$$house erupted. I called two yesterday at Georgetown University and no one said a word (at least that I could hear
)
That's good news for wannabes and it keeps the big dogs from resting on their laurels. The little dogs are constantly nipping at their heals and this forces the big dogs to continually improve or be overtaken.
I have known more than few umpires who have quit the profession because of frustrations of dealing with the good ole boy network. The good ole boy network is a natural by-product of altering the rules to fit the situation.
The old way of doing business still exists in some states at the FED level. (and probably in some NCAA D2 and D3 conferences as well.) Within an hour of where I live, West Virginia has all kinds of obstacles put in place to keep their home grown big dogs on top.
For those advocating rules modifications by umpires, your position has a glorious past. It sometimes can even be good business. It is usually bad for the umpiring profession, however.
Peter