[QUOTE]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BayStateRef
I work a little baseball and a lot of basketball. I study the rules religiously. So do my interpreters. But they have issued "interpretations" that I do not agree with or which other officials do not agree with.
The NFHS has made a big push in basketball to have officials take their personal biases towards rules out of the game. If a player plants his butt in the lane for more than three seconds, we are told to call the violation...not make an independent judgment that "it was no big deal." But I have had interpreters "instruct" that if there is no lounge chair and sunscreen, do not call the violation.
|
BayStateRef,
IMO, you are missing the point. I have no problem with the umpires following the interpreters guidelines right or wrong. because many rules are subject to interpretation and it's important as an umpire association to be consistent from game to game.
The problem I have is that when the coach questioned him instead of staying within the rule they "copped out" and used the interpreter's name as rationale for calling what they did.
Let's use your 3 second lane violation as an example:
You call a 3 second lane violation and the coach asks you why
Are you going to say "Coach because John Doe our interpreter said so" or are you simply going to state the RULE and move on.
Pete Booth