I tend to think of my role as facilitating the progress of the game. And I tend to think of "get it right" as rule enforcement. Our purpose is not to avoid flak or criticism. However, flak and criticism should be strong pointers to you that your last call may not have been beneficial to the flow of the game.... and may not have been needed. Additionally, it is recognized that criticism is included as a possibility in the job description. But is it a requirement?
This could be a very long, heated discussion. Because we all know of officials who get it right (in their opinion)but in so doing raise the ire of everyone involved.
When WestMich reversed his no-call, and we just consider it a delayed foul ball call, did he get it right? (I'm very surprised the offensive coach didn't blow up.) If he hadn't reversed the no-call, and he let the player stay at 2nd, did he get it right? Both can't physically be right.
An example: the double play ball at 2nd, F5/F6 plainly has opportunity to touch the bag but only kicks dirt within a foot of it. Do we get it right or do we call the play appropriately for the situation?
Another: catcher receives the pitch with one foot extended into the opposite batter's box. Do we get it right (FP, call illegal pitch - ball to batter and runners advance one base) or recognize that this is not important and make no call, as is likely appropriate for the situation?
I contend that there are times when getting it right is an imposition to the flow of the game. And that an umpire should not create that imposition with his only impetus being that adamant, self-satifaction of "I got it right."
I guess my statement is also based upon my experience as a basketball official where there is a tremendous amount of judgement and getting it right is rarely based upon an exacting application of the rule.
So in summary and clarification, I recommend that we all be judicious and wise in what we get right.
[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Apr 8th, 2003 at 01:01 PM]