[Tim C]

Gold:

I understand from where you are coming. I don't agree, but I understand.

The Internet has taught me that, like most things, there are two types of umpires.

There are umpires that call by what they call the intent, spirit and common usage of the game.

There are another set of umpires that think that if the game is not called by "the letter" of the rule the umpire is cheating.

I doubt if these groups will ever find a common ground.

David Casimer is a proponent of "not cheating". Dave feels that if an umpire calls a "neighborhood play" or "selects" to not call a balk that he has actually cheated the participants in the game.

Most of us that have many years of experience (and that is many years not one year many times) think we "understand" the game well enough and are informed enough to keep control of our games, give the players a fair and equal basis of the rules and never take one side over the other.

We like to look "down" on the "letter of the rule guys" becasue we have a false sense of "knowing what it really takes to be an umpire."

I contend that ALL umpires fit the mode of "selective" enforcement. Some just do it a little more widely than others.

We have blathered on-and-on about this difference and we will never find a common ground.

I can only say the following:

IF you want to continue to advance upwards in your local association or move into the highest quality ball you will need to understand the need to view the game from a persepctive much more closely to that of the "pragmatic" umpire rather than where you are today.

Gold, compromise is important in all types of business and umpiring is no difference.

I admire your strength to tilt against the windmill but if you want to move up you'll need to review, at times, how strongly you want to continue this committment to "calling by the rules."