Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Forgive me for being stubborn, but is there a rule cite or interpretation for this? I've never heard or read anything anywhere that says the whole concept of "UIC" in pro ball is gone.
|
The theme is that the term UIC is an arbitrary designation in the rule book for PU in most instances. Many of the things the OBR book says are performed by the UIC could be performed just as well by a CC who is not the PU. This is typically what is done when umpires are in crews of more than two for extended periods of time. Occasionally this is true for single assignments, ie, a non PU is designated as CC. The take away should be unless otherwise stated the PU is the UIC. If otherwise stated the CC may perform those duties of the UIC that are not by virtue of them requiring the umpire be positioned behind the plate his.
Rules are open to interpretation and adjustment. That is the spirit and intent of the rules can be as important as what is written. At this point, I have can't get over this feeling that we are picking fly **** out of pepper. Does it really matter that we designate the umpire who puts the ball in play as the PU or the UIC?
Given that rules and designation of the umpires are meant to facilitate the playing of the game, how does it matter that the OBR refers to UIC and gives him some specific duties and there is another designation called crew chief who has some of the duties yielded to him when crews work together for extended periods of time? That is what effect does the black-letter law designation you seem to be insisting have on the administration of the game if everyone involved in its administration understand the rules of engagement, ie the
de facto designation of what one umpire is called versus the
de jure designation of one umpire?
(cont below)