Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
This post would have ended a long time ago with a simple statement that, "yes it is poorly written, but here is how to interpret it.. . . . "
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
It also could have ended when the correct and valid references and interpretations were offered as requested.
|
Aw, c'mon now, Mike. You are twisting what this thread has been about.
Nobody ever rejected the interpretation. Nobody!
There was
always a consensus as to what the rule
meant.
The debate, for better or worse (probably worse
), has swarmed around the
wording.
When I, along with a host others, opined that the wording was cumbersome - you disagreed.
That was the point of contention.
So, I think WestMichBlue's observations and comments are right on target.
* * *
Listen, I know you and I seem to butt heads a lot. For the life of me I don't see why you seem to get so agitated. I know I tend to micro-focus on rules. That's probably because I have done a lot of training of young umpires who rely heavily on the
written word. They don't read manuals, they don't have time for clinics, and they don't have the experience or access to seasoned umpires to always enlighten them. If they have a question, mostly, they go to the rule book and try to get an answer.
It's my "pet peeve" (and everybody knows it) that I think rule books should be as straight forward and clear as possible. I know that will probably never happen. But I can
dream.
Many of these organizations change their rule book on a yearly basis. They add a sentence here, remove a sentence there, renumber the rules, change a clarification, etc. That's a
good thing! Sometimes I'm just amazed that some of the more poorly-worded rules are not recognized as such and are not reworded to eliminate any confusion.
These type of threads annoy you, clearly. Yet you participate. Nobody is twisting your arm.
Yet, I think discussions like this are actually
beneficial. You think they're destructive. Maybe we're
both right, to a degree. You stated that discussions like this could confuse a new umpire. Perhaps. But I think it is much more important not to confuse an umpire within the
rule book. How many umpires are going to read this thread versus the number of umpires who are reading the rule book? What we say here, whether right or wrong, isn't going to have much of an impact on the umpiring community. What the rule book says is going to have an
infinitely greater impact.
I already knew what that rule was trying to say. I think we
all did. But as a result of this thread I have learned a lot of interesting things about the evolution of the rule that I didn't know before. I see that as a good thing for everybody!
Like I said before, I don't understand how people can get so angry about things like this. I see it as mostly an academic exercise while others see it as a personal battle.
It's a sharing of opinions - that's all. It was
my opinion that the rule was needlessly convoluted. It was
your opinion that it was quite clear. Some agreed with me, some agreed with you. No big deal. That doesn't make me right or you wrong, or vice versa. It's just a discussion.
Sometimes, in my zeal, I come up with some bad metaphors - like when I suggested you were taking this too personal, as if we were talking about your daughter. I hope you know that I seriously didn't intend for that to be a slam on your daughter. Why would I do that? Like I said, I don't even know if you're married let alone have any children
at all. I used it as a metaphor for taking things personally, and then you ... well ... took it
personal.
I apologize for that, nonetheless.
Thanks for the discussion.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN