Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Look, there are many facets to being a good umpire. Rules knowledge and application is but one of these facets.
Another facet is something not written in any book. It entails common sense and sound judgment. These are the unwritten rules of umpiring. I think it is damaging if we lose the ability to discuss those aspects because someone is always looking over our shoulders to point out hypocrisy in our opinions.
Sometimes it isn't best to go by the book. We all find these aspects for ourselves, and we should be able to discuss them openly. If you disagree, fine. But don't set out on a crusade of finger-pointing, Senator McCarthy.
It can't hurt you. [/B]
|
Jim, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you will find posts of mine since I came to the boards indicating the need for sound judgement and the
ability to make the decision whether to enforce or not enforce a rule (based on the intent of the rule).
I, like many or perhaps even most, view Carl as one of the "authorities" of the boards. This is not to say he is infallible. He has been shown to have errored more than once. However, his opinions tyically carry more weight than those of others. That is why I highlight that he, too, can advocate turning a head to a rule or doing slightly different (or even opposite) of what "the book" says. Carl provides good, sound judgement as to when this can and perhaps should be done. That is a benefit he brings to all of us beyond his specific rules knowledge.
However, (you knew that was coming) it also adds to inconsistency. Whether those decisions to circumvent the rules are made by Carl, you, or me (three who now agree we have done it) it adds to inconsistency. Furthermore, who is to say John Doe is wrong when he, also, makes his decision to do so? And, yes, John Doe's decision adds to inconsistency.
I found in the threads regarding Moose and his reversed call (which was done to get the call right) that many attacked him with, "You can't do that, it's against this rule and that rule--you have broken rule 23 from the Koran !!". However, we see a situation in Texas / Stanford whereby those attacking Moose bend over backward in attempts to justify the obvious errors in the Texas game as being within the rules. Such actions justify the need of EWS.
I just find "that" such inconsistency within the discussions on the boards as one worth pointing out. Sometimes there are reasons to help substantiate variances from the rules you desire to substantiate. In the case of Moose and Texas, both were trying to get the call right for those playing the game. I don't think anyone should be attacked for trying to do that. I respect that effort.
In closing, Jim, you liken me to Senator McCarthy in your quote. I don't think that is accurate but if that is the way you see it, then so be it. One thing we do know for sure,
I am certainly no Charlie McCarthy
....................like some, at times, appear to be.
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS
[Edited by Bfair on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 10:40 AM]