|
I don't pipe in too often, but Tim - I think you are jumping Pete a bit for merely trying to keep the board active with his post(maybe I'm reading too much intent here).
You say experience teaches an umpire 'intent'- I would agree, but there is a saying that bad judgment is where experience is gained. As for myself- I've learned the intent of certain rules by using bad judgment. I've also learned a lot from these so called historians- and have applied some of those things to my rules knowledge.
I can use your 'game of percentages' to illustrate-
A good umpire needs to apply some of their judgment to their knowledge of the rules, in order to avoid having to use their full 60% allotment of game management skills dealing with the *hithouses they created because they didn't apply some of their judgment to their knowledge of the rules.
Why not avail oneself of the knowledge that is out there(yes- alot of it is highly opinionated). I don't have a lot of people to learn from in my small area- and waiting years for experience to teach me all I need to learn is wasteful. I don't take any one person's internet opinions as gospel- we all develop a philosophy to govern our 'officiating'. Knowing intent of the rules goes miles into knowing how to apply them. Saying history is irrelevant to intent is just as polar as saying the only way to learn intent is from knowing history.
Just my 2 cents worth, (which I believe is also copyrighted- I just don't remember who)
Phil
|