Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Welpe
A test isn't supposed to teach you the subject matter, it is supposed to "test" your knowledge of the subject matter. I thought it was a good thing for umpires to have the rules memorized?
|
I think memorizing stuff doesn't equal learning the rules...it just proves that you have a black and white memory of the rule book...that doens't equal a good umpire...sure it helps, but if you were certifying umpires wouldn't you want everybody to pass/ace the test because they looked up the rules and did the test...after all, this is a hobby for many of us. It's not our job. Keep the test open book...whether the test is open book or closed book, you're still testing knowledge. The only difference is that if you're testing open book, you're not testing memory. Just because I look up a rule in the off season or in between games...doesn't make me a better or worse umpire...under your logic, I should memorize the rules one time, then never open up the rule book again. Under this path, it continually promotes officials to open up and continually study the rules. Many will say that in order to be a great umpire, one should study the rules on a "daily" basis. Because one does that on a daily basis is that suggesting that you know the rules better than me because you have them memorized, and don't study the rule book...because you have it memorized?