|
Uh... what?
You said: "Interference can be intentional or unintentional ie an accident." I agree with this statement 100%.
Then you said: "Intent has everything to do with it." This is the opposite of what you just said. What exactly do you mean then?
If I'm making judgements on you, it's based on what you wrote - which is all I have to go on. It was you that said you'd give benefit of the doubt to the defense. Your apparent justification is because giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense gets you home earlier. You should be run out on your ear for that alone. If I've misunderstood your motive, then tell my why you would give the benefit of the doubt to the defense, as opposed to giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense.
(PS - there should be no doubt. Call what you see. Period. The thought of, "Well, I'm not really sure what I saw there, so I'll give it to the defense" is quite frankly awful.)
Yes, of course I've heard of umpires that simply want outs and strikes. If you recall correctly, I mentioned firing one for just that. That mentality is appalling. Umpires should not WANT anything (or root for anything) lest it cloud their judgment. We are there to officiate the contest, not to wish for certain outcomes.
Do I enjoy a 70 minute 1-0 game more than a 3 hour walkfest? Of course I do, and so do my kids when I get home early ... but I'm not there for my enjoyment - I'm there to officiate. I'm certainly not rooting for strikes or outs, or rooting against balls and errors. I'm there to officiate. You, obviously, are not, and clearly you need to rethink your reasons for being on the diamond. Truly --- why are you there? Everyone has a different answer to this - and I'm truly curious... why are YOU there?
If it's to get home as quickly as possible and collect a nominal fee ... I'd suggest retirement. If it is something else - then why the predisposition to "give the benefit of doubt to the defense"? Honestly, this statement alone should disqualify you.
|