Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
[/B]
|
David, for some reason here I just don't see how an umpires inability to make a proper decision, has anything to do with the resultant activities, once that decision is announced. The rules clearly tell you what is to happen when this takes place.
The discussion of wether or not the decision was correct, fair to one team or just a terrible decision by the official, is entirely a differnt subject.
To say that the rule references for interpretations are of any value most of the time, is in itself a "foul" statement.
Or as you would imply, a incorrect decision, announced by you. But it still doesn't make it "true" or as you have implied already, "Fair".
Sorry, I just don't understand what you are trying to tell us.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I probably didn's explain myself very well.
I have no problem with the interpretation. But the rule reference for the interpretation does not remotely address the most controversial aspect of the interpretation.
In other words, it's not as if the umpire, after making such a ruling, would be able to explain how a clearly inaccurate judgment must stand. The rule reference doesn't address the aspect about how the umpire MUST stick with a manifestly wrong call.
It begs the question: When an umpire makes a clearly inaccurate call - can he ever rectify it? Or, are there some calls he
can rectify and some calls he
cannot? And where does it say THAT?
And that's my point. The rule reference will not add any support to the assertion that the umpire SHOULD correct his clearly incorrect ruling.
Then again, that's the whole point of having interpretations - isn't it? Interpretations MUST exist for the simple fact that there *are* gray areas in the rules. The rules don't cover every possible situation. Not everything can be anticipated and codified.
I understand that. But let's not pretend that the application of some of these "interpretations" is in keeping with certain rules. In essence, most interpretations are "rules" all in themselves that stand independent of other rules.
A minor point - I guess.
It's just that whenever I read an interpretation and then go to the rule citation, I always seem to say to myself, "Now how and the hell am I going to convince anybody that this interpretation is correct based on THIS rule?"
Maybe I have too much time on my hands.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN