[devilsadvocate]

Before this thread goes too far, let me emphasize that the point of the thread should not compare "time on the internet" and "actual game experience".

In no way am I trying to compare skill on the field with knowledge of the rules.

What I am trying to compare are things like "When did you learn the force was removed when a runner passed a base, even if the runner did not actually touch it?" Things that are not actually spelled out in the rule book, but can be learned from "authoritative sources", clinics, and discussion boards.

A comparison: I have one season of umpiring under my belt. Joe, a local legend, has been calling games for 20 years. When it comes to calling the game (strike zone, judgement, game management) Joe is The Man! However, Joe doesn't have the internet. Joe has never heard of J/R or JEA or PBUC. Joe says that if a runner in LL leaves early, and tags back up, then there is no violation. Joe says that if you are in the bunting stance and you do not pull the bat back, it is a strike. When it comes to knowing the rules of the game, Joe is........like alot of umpires that have been doing it for 20 years, and have been doing it wrong!

Pete makes a great point. The more games you do, the better you will perform. Who would argue with that?
The more training you have, the better you will perform. Who would argue with that?
The more eductation you have, the better you will perform. The way I see it, new umpires have many more "educational opportunities" today than they did in the past.

Rick Roder made an excellent point (in his interview with eumpire) that 99 times out of 100 plays will be routine. So, for the most part, extensive rules knowledge doesn't come into play during the game. It's balls/strikes, safe or out. But for that 1 time that something unusual happens, the new bred of umpire, with resources at his disposal, will be more likely to get it right than the new umpire of 20 years ago.

[Edited by devilsadvocate on Dec 17th, 2001 at 09:19 AM]