Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
No arguments here, but I have somewhat of a devilish question for you.
What happens when you attend a school, clinic, seminar of any of the org. noted and find out that your local UIC was either incorrect or interjecting personal preference/interpretation into his/her teachings that are not in line with the respective org. rules? How do you call it then?
|
My answer is I will call the game the way the person in charge of the rules for that game, league, or tournament wants it called. Or, if the local interp is too off the wall, I won't take the assignment.
One thing that some antagonists on rule interpretation (and those of you who frequent the "e" board, or were here over the winter know the sort I am talking about) fail to understand is that the umpire is (usually) an independent contractor who takes a contract to call a game with an entity. The entity gets to decide the rules, not the umpire, and not the sanctioning body (for example, ASA).
So, to answer your devilish question, Mike, if the game is one where the UIC has say regarding rules interp, I do what he says. This can be for leagues, tournament, whatever.
OTOH, if the game is one where the NUS of the sanctioning body controls the playing rules (for ASA, Championship Play), then barring a written ruling put on that tournament to the contrary (and I have seen those, even in Championship Play - I have no idea if that was kosher, but it was not my place to object), the NUS or higher level clinic rule interp applies.
Teams agree to play in leagues or tournaments with a certain understanding of the rules that will be applied. So long as all of the teams know what those are (or should have known) - and informing them is the organizer's responsibility, not the umpire's - and the rules are applied the same to all games in the league / tournament, then there should be no beef even if they are different from the "official playing rules.