Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
Be careful with how far you go with using the "intent" of a rule. While I do agree with you that we should call the BR out in this sitch, there are times when some umpires stretch rules to match what they believe their intent is. ASA has gotten more and more strict with letter-of-the-law interpretations, as they can often be our only salvation.
When there's no room left for interpretation in the application of the rules, we, as umpires, stand on firmer ground.
|
Being a letter-of-the-law umpire can also get you into trouble. Years ago ASA had a problem with the wording of the D3K rule. I can't remember the exact format, but one way to interpret the rule as it was written then would have prohibited the Batter from becoming a Batter Runner with 2 outs in a given scenario. Maybe it was with a runner on 1st. I can't remember the exact scenario. Regardless, the wording was misleading at best. We all know that with 2 outs the Batter becomes a Batter Runner on the D3K. That was the intent but that's not how it was worded.
We need to know the intent of the rules to accurately enforce them. The rule book should convey the intenct but sometimes the intent is not as clear as in other cases. This is not meant as harsh criticism on the writers of the rule book. We've all written something that didn't clearly convey our meaning. Often times what we write is clear to us because we know what we meant. However, the reader might misinterpret it.