Inconsistent/inadequate training of officials is a poor excuse for those rules being different. I think that if the official is poorly or inadequately trained, he is going to screw up the rules regardless. I would posit that you have a better chance of him knowing how OBR work than actually understanding the subtle FED differences versus OBR. Why would he know the FED differences is he is poorly or inadequately trained?
I agree with Dave, keep 'em the same except for the reasons he mentioned.
Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Dave E:
This thread [PO from WU]; appeal play mechanics: all reason #4 [inconsistent/ inadequate training of officials, lack of confidence in judgment].
The FED appeal is a great example: it is virtually impossible for an umpire [no matter how clueless] to FUBAR the proceedural req's - all that's left is: did you see it? As you note, it is still possible for the teams to blow it, but that's a different subject.
|
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|