View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 27, 2012, 08:13pm
EsqUmp EsqUmp is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
Personally, I'd prefer that the umpire did know the rule and prove it by not calling interference on this play.

And there are rules that cover this. I'm kind of scratching my head thinking of any routine plays that aren't covered by a rule that an umpire needs to know and know how to apply it.

What are examples of plays that are "just part of the game"...but not covered by an applicable rule?
My point was that it's often as important to know when not to make a call as it is to make a call. I find that many umpires appear to try to make rules apply to a situation to make an actual call (as opposed to a non-call).

Of course, you would have to know the rules and know not to invoke a rule that isn't applicable.

A "wreck" as defined in the rule book is an example.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote