[Tim C]

Peter:

"IMO, in order to enforce rules we need to know some history behind them and what THEIR TRUE meaning is."

PB, everyone is allowed an opinion.

In other threads when a poster attempts to take the position of "The Devil's Advocate" many come in and attack.

So I'll just post my OWN opinion about your post.

As Carl has been know to say "Pish Posh" (now, that is a CORRECT version of the term in my part of the country -- when Carl first used the term some idiot documented that the "real" term is "Pish Tosh" -- wrongO, regionalization makes Pish Posh as correct as Pish Tosh, but alas that is yet another winter thread)!

An umpire does NOT "need" any knowledge of the history of rules to be a great umpire.

Previous to the internet not one umpire in 100 in the local associations where I was a member cared at all that,

"In the Federal League in 1866 a batter could only be put out by either catching his batted ball while in flight or was hit by a thrown ball."

Peter it does not matter WHERE a rule comes from or how it came to being. The ONLY important thing is that an umpire knows WHAT rule book is in effect for the game he is working at that moment.

If I go to a league and the rules are that every batter starts with a 2 Ball 1 Strike count then it is of no freakin' matter to me as WHY that is the rule . . . if it has been documented to me that it is, indeed, a rule it is my JOB to call the rule. It is not my job to worry about HOW the rule came about.

EXPERIENCE in umpiring teaches an umpire the "intent" of a rule NOT anything in the history of the rule.

We have made great internet heroes of a few individuals who have devoted their lives to the history and development of baseball rules. That's great, let them have their 15 mins of fame and let's move on.

Umpiring is a game of percentages:

20% Rules Knowledge
20% Judgement
60% Game Management

THAT's the LIST!

Only a pompous umpire arrives at the field and "thinks" they have a feel for the participants. Pete, keep things straight . . . there is little, make that NO, relationship between a game umpired (officiated) in the Major Professional Leagues and our game between the local "A & P" and "Tom's Shell Station." And don't ever think there is . . .

Unless you have been sent by your assignor to be an "Elephant Hunter" you have no skill or training to have a feel for a game before it starts.

All an umpire is doing is placing the banana peel in his own path when he makes predicitions about the contestants or what will happen in any given game.

Peter, over the "Internet Years" we know that there are basically two type of officials:

"Call It By the Book" types that think an official is CHEATING if they make the "expected call" or make a call that is part of the "intent" of the game (the neighborhood play at second base as an example). These people reach a fevered pitch when discussion lean to "intent"

And there are "Intent" umpires,

which are the ones that think they KNOW EVERYTHI"NG about how a game should be called and select to overlook some mundane things and call be "advantage/disadvantage".

In their won way these umpires are just as "Bad" (a subjective term on my part) as those that call with the rule book in one hand and thier indiclickercounter in the other.

Pete the ONLY thing in your post that I agree about is your conclusion and we agree 100% on that point.

No one needs over officious people working the games (just read the basketball board on this webpage for the definition of OVER OFFICIOUS)however, we do need people that know rules, develop good judgment and can manage a game under any circumstances.

Again, this is all In My Opinion (I think BFair has that salutation copywrited)