|
[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;899369]Warning - Long post
A dissenter to the Oswald Tower Philosophy with rebuttal Comments from Jay Miner in bold text between *****asterisks.*****
Warning - Long post by dissenter
Not a fan because it is geared toward the game of basketball which, IMO is a game where the rules are more often inconsistently applied than any other field/court game of which I am aware. *****The real function of a true sport’s official is to preserve a safe environment for the participants and maintain fairness with a realistic approach during the quest of opposing teams attempting to win the contest.*****
In softball, we basically refer to it as not going looking for boogers. If you see it, call it, but you should never go out there "looking" for the violation. If you want to "find" a violation in any sport, you probably can at will and that isn't supposed to be what the game is about. *****The preceding text sounds very much like the Oswald Tower Philosophy. By the way, John Bunn, another truly great sport’s officiating philosopher extraordinaire, was a huge proponent of The Oswald Tower Philosophy for all sports. Researchers will have great difficulty finding any credible dissenters of the Oswald Tower Philosophy of officiating or detractors of the highly respected John Bunn. All serious officials should Google the names of those two men and analyze their philosophies of officiating.*****
However, I am mostly not a fan because of the contradiction. First you are told to make the call when you see a rules violation and then not make the call if it violation did not apply to the intent and spirit of the rule. And that is where I have a problem. *****The Tower Philosophy is a guideline that espouses applying the spirit and intent of the rule rather than the reader’s literalistic interpretation of written rulebook text. The Tower Philosophy was founded to enlighten officials and provide them a way not to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rules. Officials who are ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists, often don’t realize they are hurting their careers by being over officious and dogmatic in their approach to managing a competitive event. That fact is known by anyone who attends coaches meeting on a regular basis.*****
To start, unless you were in the room during the discussion, you really don't know the intent or spirit in which the rule was enacted. *****Shame on any official who does not understand the spirit and intent of a rule and why the rule was necessary. An official who doesn’t understand “purpose and intent” is shortchanging the athletes playing the game. Any credible official has the responsibility to research the intent and purpose of the rule and why the rule was adopted. Without that information the official will be at a disadvantage in difficult situations where rules’ knowledge, common sense, thoughtful reasoning and good judgment are vitally important. There are many knowledgeable interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors willing to share their expertise about why a particular rule is necessary.***** You can have varying opinions as to how and why and the purpose which brought the rule about, but that is the problem. *****That is why interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors exist.*****
When passing along information, people have a tendency to apply their own little touch, an embellishment they believe to help others to understand. Problem is that just because you think it will help doesn't mean the person hearing it will take it in that manner. I don't think there is anyone who teaches that doesn't do this to some level, even to the point of changing the point of emphasis in an explanation depending upon to whom you are speaking. *****That is why interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors are necessary.*****
I deal in documents involving people from 31 states & DC. I give specific directions which ask for a, b or c. Often I get 1, 2 or 3 simply because, in spite of what was typed, the respondents answered base on what they thought I meant. This has become commonplace in this country and is routinely evident on this and other boards. Well, if we cannot get people to get it straight when they have time to sit and think about it, what it going to happen when they have less than a half-second? *****It is the task of dedicated interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors to inculcate their wisdom.*****
The "intent and spirit" of rules in general is to keep a level playing field. For someone to not call a rule because "they" did not believe it fell into this category usually makes the game "fair" for one team, not the other and that in itself is not fair. *****The number one complaint of coaches and athletics’ administrators is they deplore officials who have established themselves as nitpickers who unnecessarily inflict themselves upon a contest.*****
But the biggest problem I have is that it is a readily available excuse for the weak umpire to not apply rules THEY for which they do not care or the pressure making a call may bring. *****It is much more likely the weak, unsure or poorly prepared umpire has no faith in their ability to fairly judge and adjudicate situations and who therefore seek a black or white ruling for every possible scenario that possibly might arise.*****
And before you all go off half-cocked, I am quite aware that some rules are in the book as a tool to address extreme or rare circumstances and are not meant to be a full-time collar on the players or a game. I am also aware of that some rules were geared more toward one game or level than another. That doesn't mean you ignore them, but may temper the application. *****The preceding text sounds very much like the Oswald Tower Philosophy.*****
There are many people who take the "invisible official" way too far. Some umpire believe that means to just sit back until there is an egregious violation and then step up and try to smooth it out.
In today's world, if you have a sporting event where the official on the field or court is not noticed, it is possible something just isn't right. In softball, there are still way too many people who believe in the "if you an cheatin', you ain't tryin' " adage. It is usually when the team isn't getting away with the cheating that the official becomes visible, and rightfully so, that is his/her job.
The level of rules knowledge and skill of the participants doesn't help, either. We have all seen it. They do something stupid, or is a clear violation and it is the official's fault. How many times have the youth umpire heard, "let the girls play"? Of course, it is only when the violation was on their team, not the opponent. And I don't think I need to bring up the NCAA IP saga. You want the official to have no bearing on the game, have the participants learn and play the game by the rules THEY accepted. And when they make a mistake and it is a violation, get over it and move on. As a player, I was grateful to have an umpire who made the correct call without a team having to go beg for it. Not everything is an appeal.
IOW, I believe you are there to officiate the game by the rules that are meant to be applied routinely and apply those meant for game management or safety when necessary. No need to be loud or boisterous or put on some type of show to demonstrate what is happening. If the coach needs an explanation, you get together with the coach and explain it to him or her. Don't scream at them or dismiss them, they have a job to do, also. An official is part of the game, like it or not, and needs to be visible on the field, but not part of the show.
If you need to find out the difference, that information is usually available through an official source and that can be anything from an official web site to a UIC, assuming the UIC has done his/her job and stayed abreast of the rule changes and clarifications. Apparently, some cannot be bothered with the clinics and schools available and unfortunately, pass along bad information. An umpire serious about the craft will find a way to get the correct answer. *****The previous five paragraphs appear to be off subject and not related to the Oswald Tower Philosophy of Sports’ Officiating. Therefore, no comments are offered.*****
|