Using 9.01c

[devilsadvocate]

When did that become an issue? I see nothing in this thread to discourage learning. Want to learn? Ask questions, don't pose feigned thought alleged to be contrary to your real opinion. No need to hide behind "devil's advocacy.

So is the issue that I have chosen "devilsadvocate" as a username? Then ignore that.

It is because I have put the Latin for "devilsadvocate" as my signature? Then ignore that.

I could have just as easily put "The question guy", and my signature could have been "I like to ask questions to understand the situations better."

Is that being "true to mine own self"? I suppose I could change it. But there wouldn't be much fun in that. And having fun is being true to myself.

Would I be getting any flack at all if I just used the username of "Eric Lambert", and simply did not have a signature?

It has surprised me that my post, which dealt with using 9.01c (that's 9.01c for you bluezebra), has gotten 5 responses, but my username and signature has generated three seperate posts!

Wait a little while before you judge "devilsadvocate". If your impression is based on a username and signature, then you have limited your criteria to the most superficial. I think that you will find that when I post "an opposite view for the sake of discussion" the ensuing discussion is generally worthwhile, and does enlighten the subject.

It's the "what" I post, not the "why" I post.

[GarthB]

d.a. opines (or maybe he is just trying to "provoke a discussion or argument): It has surprised me that my post, which dealt with using 9.01c (that's 9.01c for you bluezebra), has gotten 5 responses, but my username and signature has generated three seperate posts!

I count six, now seven, such posts.

d.a continues, possibly sincerely, maybe not, who knows?: Wait a little while before you judge "devilsadvocate". If your impression is based on a username and signature, then you have limited your criteria to the most superficial. I think that you will find that when I post "an opposite view for the sake of discussion" the ensuing discussion is generally worthwhile, and does enlighten the subject.


My impression is based on years in the corporate and other real worlds where I have been exposed to countless individuals who attempted to hide behind "devil's advocacy" when making arguments. One could not be sure the reason why the argument was taking place, which despite d.a.'s opinion, does matter, and whether or not it would lead anywhere. Usually, it was a waste of time.

Fortunately, at least in the marketeing arena, those individuals did not last long. They were seen as empty vessels attempting to gain recognition by spouting off on something they were either ill informed or just trying to provoke discussion and argument for the sake of argument and discussion. What an utter waste of time.

That said, an honest question from someone who needs an answer is never a waste of time. But a question posed "purely" and solely for the purpose of engaging an argument serves no positive purpose.


It's the "what" I post, not the "why" I post. concludes Mr. d.a.

Wrong, simply wrong. Answers depend as much on the why as the what. Much more thought and consideration is returned to those who sincerely want to learn. Those who are simply attempting to draw others into an argument are eventually left to themselves.
__________________
advocatus diaboli Somebody who criticizes or opposes something purely in order to provoke a discussion or argument.

And that's the problem.

[His High Holiness]

Eric;

Don't sweat Garth's barbs at your handle. He went through a period when he was at war with the handle that I use. He said that it was derogatory towards the big dog of umpiring in Rome.

Carl christened me "His Holiness" about 18 months ago and I have proudly used the title ever since. I even got a promotion to "His High Holiness" in order to avoid confusion with the umpire in a robe. :o)

Peter

[GarthB]

It was not the nom de plume that Peter uses (really now, "handle" is soooooo pedestrian) that tweaked me in the early stages, rather it was the irreverant comments and what I, as an overly sensitive Catholic perceived to be, slurs that first accompanied its use.

Since then, Peter has demonstrated a reasonableness many thought beyond him. To his credit he wears his new self proclaimed title with a new found humility.

I have no objections his chosen internet name, as I have no problem with devils advocate's name.

I must be failing to make myself clear. It is not the name that I find troublesome, it is the self-admitted practice of the user to post "purely" to provoke discussion and argument. This, to me, reeks of insincerity or an attempt to disguise a lack of knowledge.

Better to openly and honestly pose a question and seek an answer than to feign intellect behind a disguise.

GB

[JJ]

I always thought playing devil's advocate meant taking or presenting one side of a situation that will go against the grain of the mainstream, even when it may NOT be what the devil's advocate actually believes, to stimulate DISCUSSION - not argument. I do not like to argue for argument's sake (despite what many coaches might say!), but I do not have any problem with presenting a contrary side of an issue to make sure all information is on the table for those who are into making well-informed decisions. That's why I change my mind every now and then - because someone playing a devil's advocate gets me thinking. I THINK that's what a discussion forum is all about.

Don't just argue, but don't bash those who present another side of a situation WITHOUT personal attacks being involved.
That's my 9.01.....c?

GBA

[GarthB]

JJ, you're right. Discussion is what this and other boards are about. Honest, forthright, open discussion. Disagreement is fine. Many of us have changed our views due to thoughtful disagreement.

I don't believe that posts designed to deliberately engage an argument are honest or thoughtful. That's all.

Enough said by me. (More than enough, actually)

Someone else can have the final word. I'm done.

GB

[devilsadvocate]

"And as the sun sets on another glorious day in Rome...."

And todays final thought.....

devilsadvocate "Somebody who offers a different point of view on an issue in order to provoke a discussion for better understanding and continued learning."

Now, that's what I mean. I think the other just sounds cooler. That's why I had the latin in there, the coolness factor.

[JJ]

ty.

GBA

[DDonnelly19]

There's some scary thinking in these parts that 9.01(c) gives the umpire the right to modify certain rules to their liking.

After a clinic for a local youth league, I asked the UIC about the wording in the local rulebook dealing with an overthrow. The rulebook actually said "1 + 1" on an overthrow. I discussed that the rulebook had some glaring errors and used this as an example. He replied, "If the runner is standing on first and isn't moving, I'm not going to give him 2 bases since he hasn't earned it. 9.01(c) lets me do that."

It's in every umpire's best interest to rule with what's consistent with official interpretation and authoritative opinion. What umpire, from rookies to veterans, hasn't heard the saying, "Well, they didn't call it that way yesterday!" If 9.01(c) were to be that open-ended, any sense of consistency would cease to exist.

[devilsadvocate]

I get the feeling that some posters believe that umpires will abuse 9.01c when it is used.

They've seen examples, like DDonnelly19 illustrated, were an umpire does something that violates the wording of the book and uses the "authority of 9.01c" to do it. And it makes them cringe. And doing so is wrong. "Anything not specifically covered" is the wording. So for everyone that has witnessed Smitty and the 1+1 call, I understand. But remember, it is the umpire that is at fault, not the rule.

They've seen examples of envoking 9.01c when there is already a rule that covers a specific situation. Many people have referred to that as "hiding behind the rule to make up for a lack of knowledge". An umpire that will study the rules, discover why those rules are in the book, and then properly apply those rules will make a better umpire. He also won't run into a situation where he has to "resort to common sense and fair play." But consider, the umpire may be using the wrong rule, but he's going in the right direction.

And of course, in their wildest imaginations, they picture the umpire whose authority has run amock, telling managers to take a lap around the field for Batting Out of Order violations, pushups for slinging the bat, and an out if the shirt isn't tucked in. Personnally, I think that this kind of statement is ridiculous. If you believe that you know of an umpire in your association that would use 9.01c to make a player run laps, please remove him from your association.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I believe that most umpires understand the rules and know the spirit and intent of those rules. I also believe that most umpires have good judgement. I think most umpires will use both when they use 9.01c.

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by devilsadvocate
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I believe that most umpires understand the rules and know the spirit and intent of those rules. I also believe that most umpires have good judgement. I think most umpires will use both when they use 9.01c.

I disagree -- I believe very few umpires ever understand or are taught the intent of the rules or official interpretations and authoritative opinions.

Back in the day, I recall that 9.01(c) was hammered into every young umpire's mind that it's the greatest rule ever written, that it gave us the power to do "whatever we want." So every umpire from that day used 9.01(c)'s "power" to justify any call, such as ignoring a balk. Ignoring a balk isn't "covering something not in the rules," it's applying the advantage\disadvantage principle to the situation at hand. 9.01(c) is used when you have R2, R3, 2 outs, PU calls IF, ball lands on a dog on the playing field and kills the dog, the ball is scooped up by a seagull who is then shot and killed from a fan in the stands, and the ball sails over the fence in the outfield.

I don't even think we should mention the existance of 9.01(c) to younger umpires, because most would likely abuse its "power."

[devilsadvocate]

"I don't even think we should mention the existance of 9.01(c) to younger umpires, because most would likely abuse its "power."

Or we could explain the different ways that 9.01c is misused, and make sure that we instruct new umpires on the purpose and proper use of the rule so they won't abuse it's power.