|
Pete ...
"When in Rome, do as the Roman's do," even though Roman baseball is not very good.
My point is this: ADVANTAGE / DISADVANTAGE ..is the real question. Some of us are minimalists. Some maximalists. One umpire will over officiate, while another will only act when absolutely mandatory. Both seem to miss the point of balancing their respective performances, so that the game may be played with 'proper' jurisprudence (the science or philosophy of law). Are we not arbiters? Shouldn't all of our decisions be weighed for 'balance.' It's so obvious. BALL / STRIKE ... FAIR / FOUL ... CATCH / NO-CATCH ... SAFE / OUT. They all require judgement, good judgement!
I advocate being flexible on 'non-critical' elements of the game. Yes, "let the kids play." All rules concerning safety and fairness shouldn't be overlooked, all else requires good subjective (that's what it is) judgemnet. We all work in a very subjective environment. Our differences vary from slight, to "WOW, I'd never do that." Find some balance to all that you do. You know the expression "we should all cry, and laugh too, each day."
Adapt to the game within the game. Weigh everything, but keep the product you deliver balanced with what may be necessary or needed. Nothing more, nothing less, except do the very best you can. If you short-change the participants of the game, remember that means you short-change yourself as well.
[Edited by etbaseball on Mar 11th, 2002 at 04:15 PM]
__________________
Ed
|