|
"No, you be careful that you don't give the impression you're a politician on the run in Washington.
We both ignore FED rules. True. But...
The rules you ignore have the potential of giving one team an advantage not intended by the rules.
The rules I ignore are those where the miscreant gained no advantage.
Your watchword is: I don't like that rule.
My watchword is: No harm, no foul.
In the great scheme of things (grin), which is the better philosophy?"
Papa C Editor-in-Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules you ignore allow a run to score that shouldn't. How is that less of an impact than not enforcing a rule that is not in the Fed Case or Rule Books? In the grand(better word choice - grin) scheme of things, your ignorance of printed book rules is clearly the poorer choice. As I've said, if the VO rule was important it would be clarified in places other than decade old newsletter that only a few hagards possess.
Secondly, the expected call is "no harm, no foul" to you. I think that most of us would agree that the team you screwed thinks otherwise. You also suggested that if the ball beats the runner by five steps but the runner makes a terrific slide, avoiding a high and lazy tag, you'll call him out because it is expected. That is classic ego at play and horribly tragic. Your vanity prevents the proper call from being made. God forbid you should have to explain your call to a coach! "Not me, I'm the great and powerful Carl Childress, I make the expected call because appearance is better than accuracy." How difficult is it to say, "Coach, the ball did get there early, but tell your fielder to tag the runner so I can call him out."? What section of the umpire manual contains the "expected call" philosophy? I didn't hear Davis professing that view last year. In fact, he said they were being scrutininzed more intensely and told to get the call right.
Are you also one of those umpires that won't call a strike if the catcher doesn't catch it with his webbing up? You probably don't like to call the non-swinging strike when the catcher can't hold the pitch. I've seen these umpires before and they love to tell catchers to grab it clean and they can sell it. B.S.! (Correctly used emphatic element.)
Call the damn pitch and leave your ego at the gate.
Prescience is a gift wasted on umpires. Most of us wait to see what really happened before making the call. We don't assume or let coaches/assignors/evaluators dictate our judgement. We should do the best job we can because the next generation of umpires may be playing or watching.
[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 04:02 AM]
|