Quote:
Originally posted by His High Holiness
Only "Smittys" in the USA and umpires down under still engage in this sort of chicanery.
Your continued efforts to distort, deliberately misinterpret, and pick apart others writings on this subject is not helpful. (It almost Porterisian.) Get over it. Australia is behind the times. Quit trying to teach archaic mechanics to American umpires that will only get them in trouble with the big dogs.
I'm sorry about the Porter comment but I just could not help it. That was totally unfair on my part. 
|
Ok, let's deal with your assertions one at a time:
- Putting Australian officials in the same category as US "Smittys"? Brrrrrrtttt!!!!
- "...distort, deliberately misinterpret, and pick apart others writings ..." - you're just trying to light my wick, aren't ya? Well, I ain't gonna give ya' the satisfaction! Brrrrrrttttt!!!
- "Quit trying to teach archaic mechanics..."? Ok, that one needs an answer besides "Brrrrrrtttt!!! ". See below.
You are again operating from the basis of a false assumption, Peter: namely that the
new mechanic is necessarily the
better mechanic. Fact is, all the new mechanic appears to do is to appease the whining coaches and managers who believed they were being "cheated" out of
their "right" to a "fair" appeal on a check swing. The trouble with
their reasoning is that the whole check swing appeal process first arose as a concession to the UMPIRE, to seek help on his judgement call IF
he felt he needed to do so.
Since 1976, though, we've been cow-towing to those whining coaches DEMANDING that we check every time they want a second opinion - especially if they've noticed that Smitty is on the line and they feel their chances of a result are commensurately better. It's just another way for coaches to try to control umpires who quite properly ought to be above and beyond their control for the good of the game.
IOW, Pete, the check swing appeal is just a packet of pi$$ that shouldn't even be in the rules anymore to begin with!
- It's the ONLY umpire's judgement decision that can legally be appealed
(Oh, erk! Here comes BFair agin! Better get the SOK ready. ) - It's the ONLY appeal without any rule-based time limit on its expiry.
- It's an anachronism that ASSUMES that the base coach is better placed to see the check swing - that's 70's thinking only shared by Rich Fronheiser and a few others these days. The PBUC has long since determined differently. Trust the NCAA to foster a movement against that sensible view in favour of the whining coaches. They don't call balks any more in NCAA either, do they?
Frankly I'm perfectly HAPPY that Australia hasn't yet followed the NCAA "lead" on this issue. I'll sincerely regret the day that they do. Until then, I'll continue to "espouse" - rather than "teach" - any damn mechanic I like! Like everyone else on this board and elsewhere, please feel free to ignore that if it isn't to your liking.
Oh, and before anyone gets the WRONG IDEA from this purely TEXT message, NO I am NOT angry simply because I have chosen to use a few BOLD words to emphasise the occasional point. Peter is obviously looking to fire up a discussion. I believe my response points out that the same objective can be achieved without resorting to insults - even the good natured ones that Peter seldom uses.
Cheers