Arguing

[Dave Hensley]

Pete's approach is, as I see it, an example of what the FED has done with many rules, that most of us object to - dumbing down the rule so that the lowest common denominator can still enforce it. It's the ill-considered application of the KISS philosophy.

Garth explained why the "discussions" that have evolved in the game have evolved, and why the professional interpretation of the rule Pete cited have more flexibility than the letter of the rule suggests. To be sure, learning how to appropriately and consistently apply the interpretation of the rule is one of the more challenging areas of umpiring, and requires both experience and aptitude.

But difficult though it is, dumbing down this aspect of an umpire's game management responsibilities would fundamentally change the game, and turn it into something that would only resemble the game of baseball in passing. It would be a dumbing down that would cost far more than it would gain.

And it would chip away, in a big way, at the sense of pride and accomplishment we have when we walk off the field at the end of a game, knowing we turned in a good umpiring performance and managed any tense situations professionally and with aplomb.