Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
Actually, we do not go by the letter of the rule. We learn how to call the game from clinics, and by talking with other umpires in the parking lot, or on these forums. We learn by experience from watching and calling hundreds of games over several years.
What we learn is how to call a game to keep it flowing, running smoothly without ether side gaining an advantage over the other. We are more concerned about the intent of the rule rather that the strict Webster definition of the words.
The problem comes when coaches (dads, players, etc.) pick up a rulebook and read a single sentence and discover that umpires are not calling the game by the rules.
Our issue is to find a balance between overly technical about every little variance, and not calling obvious violations that allow an advantage to one team.
What you see on these boards is umpires trading these experiences and learning from each other, and changing to adapt to a common understanding of how to call the game.
WMB
|
clevbrown,
To WMB's comments I would also add official interpretations. We get these from training (which he mentioned), the POE's in the back of the umpire's rule book, from the case book, and from official clarifications and interpretations issued by the sanctioning organization between rule book publication dates.
As to your original question, the recognition of "touch and go" as a vaild interpretation of the "1 sec" minimum has been around in ASA for many years.
I have no opinion on whether the "2 sec" rule in ISF is better, worse, silly, smart, good for the game, bad for the game, or a big "don't care", but one thing seems clear - ISF does not recognize "touch and go" as legal whereas ASA does.