|
Peter:
I'm curious how far you would go with "getting it right." Would you go to the point of perhaps getting it wrong to get it right?
Example:
At officiating.com there is an article in which it is suggested that if one umpire feels the other made an error, say in a base award or such, he should first go to the other umpire and explain what he feels would be the appropriate award. If, given that information, the original umpire still believed he was right and did not change his call, the author recommends that the other umpire overrule him and change the call himself.
Aside from tradition and rule (9.02C No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asksed to do so by the umpire making it.) I see other dangers, primarily this: this advice assumes that the second umpire is correct about the ruling, a dangerous assumption at best. The result could very well be a correct ruling changed to an incorrect ruling.
So, then, Peter, are you suggesting that to move from the Jurassic Period requires that we jump into the tar pit that this advice creates? Or is there some happy medium you're striving for?
__________________
GB
|