Knowing and Understanding Rules

[PeteBooth]

On the various message Boards one gets into heated debates or discussions on rules. Their wording, meaning and authoritative opinion on the subject matter.

IMO, in order to enforce rules we need to know some history behind them and what THEIR TRUE meaning is.

Let's take Obstruction. What would happen if there was no such animal. A fielder would literally Tackle a runner so he /she could not reach the next base and then tag them for an easy out.

Same is true on interference. An offensive player would simply push the defensive player out of the way so they couldn't make a play.

Now I know the aforementioned are extreme cases, but IMO serve as a stepping stone in enforcing the rule as it exists today.

It seems that on every little bump, tangle of players etc. some person be it the coach, player or fan watching wants something called, when in fact it's nothing.

Also, IMO KNOWING the teams helps us officiate. Example when you watch an NBA or College game and the officials are calling it close for the most part they have to because of the teams involved ala the old Miami Heat and New York Knick series.

Also, even MLB issues edicts when they FEEL something could happen as when Roger Clemens pitched at Shea last year.

Therefore IMO, in order to become GOOD officials we can't just look at the wording of a particular rule but what is it's TRUE purpose and also have a feel for the game meaning the participants so that the game doesn't get away from us.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is FED's speed up rule concerning the batter. The purpose of the rule was not to have constant delays in the game not to hose the offense.

In it's first year of adoption too many FED officals were calling strikes on the batter for merely being out of the box, which prompted the change to allow the official to use discretion, meaning if there is no delay don't call it which is the way it should have been enforced all along.

In Summary, I believe in order to become GOOD officials we need to not only do the basics and read the rule book but UNDERSTAND it and KNOW how to apply it so we do not become overly officious. We also need to know the Teams involved so that the game doesn't get away from us.

Pete Booth

[Tim C]

Peter:

"IMO, in order to enforce rules we need to know some history behind them and what THEIR TRUE meaning is."

PB, everyone is allowed an opinion.

In other threads when a poster attempts to take the position of "The Devil's Advocate" many come in and attack.

So I'll just post my OWN opinion about your post.

As Carl has been know to say "Pish Posh" (now, that is a CORRECT version of the term in my part of the country -- when Carl first used the term some idiot documented that the "real" term is "Pish Tosh" -- wrongO, regionalization makes Pish Posh as correct as Pish Tosh, but alas that is yet another winter thread)!

An umpire does NOT "need" any knowledge of the history of rules to be a great umpire.

Previous to the internet not one umpire in 100 in the local associations where I was a member cared at all that,

"In the Federal League in 1866 a batter could only be put out by either catching his batted ball while in flight or was hit by a thrown ball."

Peter it does not matter WHERE a rule comes from or how it came to being. The ONLY important thing is that an umpire knows WHAT rule book is in effect for the game he is working at that moment.

If I go to a league and the rules are that every batter starts with a 2 Ball 1 Strike count then it is of no freakin' matter to me as WHY that is the rule . . . if it has been documented to me that it is, indeed, a rule it is my JOB to call the rule. It is not my job to worry about HOW the rule came about.

EXPERIENCE in umpiring teaches an umpire the "intent" of a rule NOT anything in the history of the rule.

We have made great internet heroes of a few individuals who have devoted their lives to the history and development of baseball rules. That's great, let them have their 15 mins of fame and let's move on.

Umpiring is a game of percentages:

20% Rules Knowledge
20% Judgement
60% Game Management

THAT's the LIST!

Only a pompous umpire arrives at the field and "thinks" they have a feel for the participants. Pete, keep things straight . . . there is little, make that NO, relationship between a game umpired (officiated) in the Major Professional Leagues and our game between the local "A & P" and "Tom's Shell Station." And don't ever think there is . . .

Unless you have been sent by your assignor to be an "Elephant Hunter" you have no skill or training to have a feel for a game before it starts.

All an umpire is doing is placing the banana peel in his own path when he makes predicitions about the contestants or what will happen in any given game.

Peter, over the "Internet Years" we know that there are basically two type of officials:

"Call It By the Book" types that think an official is CHEATING if they make the "expected call" or make a call that is part of the "intent" of the game (the neighborhood play at second base as an example). These people reach a fevered pitch when discussion lean to "intent"

And there are "Intent" umpires,

which are the ones that think they KNOW EVERYTHI"NG about how a game should be called and select to overlook some mundane things and call be "advantage/disadvantage".

In their won way these umpires are just as "Bad" (a subjective term on my part) as those that call with the rule book in one hand and thier indiclickercounter in the other.

Pete the ONLY thing in your post that I agree about is your conclusion and we agree 100% on that point.

No one needs over officious people working the games (just read the basketball board on this webpage for the definition of OVER OFFICIOUS)however, we do need people that know rules, develop good judgment and can manage a game under any circumstances.

Again, this is all In My Opinion (I think BFair has that salutation copywrited)

[phillycheese]

I don't pipe in too often, but Tim - I think you are jumping Pete a bit for merely trying to keep the board active with his post(maybe I'm reading too much intent here).
You say experience teaches an umpire 'intent'- I would agree, but there is a saying that bad judgment is where experience is gained. As for myself- I've learned the intent of certain rules by using bad judgment. I've also learned a lot from these so called historians- and have applied some of those things to my rules knowledge.

I can use your 'game of percentages' to illustrate-
A good umpire needs to apply some of their judgment to their knowledge of the rules, in order to avoid having to use their full 60% allotment of game management skills dealing with the *hithouses they created because they didn't apply some of their judgment to their knowledge of the rules.

Why not avail oneself of the knowledge that is out there(yes- alot of it is highly opinionated). I don't have a lot of people to learn from in my small area- and waiting years for experience to teach me all I need to learn is wasteful. I don't take any one person's internet opinions as gospel- we all develop a philosophy to govern our 'officiating'. Knowing intent of the rules goes miles into knowing how to apply them. Saying history is irrelevant to intent is just as polar as saying the only way to learn intent is from knowing history.

Just my 2 cents worth, (which I believe is also copyrighted- I just don't remember who)

Phil

[Tim C]

Please understand first that Pete and I go back quite a ways on the internet boards. We have also had "off line" e-mail conversations about issues. Pete can stand up for himself.

My post is mainly an opinion about the "self made" historical "experts" that think that knowing the complete history of rules is paramount to understanding the rules as we call them in today's game.

Judgement and knowledge of rules is NOT what the post is about. I "expect" umpires to know the rules they are calling . . . I expect nothing more, and they need nothing more about "history" of the rules or the game to be a great umpire.

Hey being in your area means that you have GREAT fresh crab, good golf and a green landscape. What you do not need, in my opinion, is "some history" about a rule to call it correctly.

That is the point.

THAT'S THE LIST!!

Philly I understand that Pete was just trying to start a thread. I answered that by giving almost a view 180* different than his feelings, I cannot think that there would be a BETTER answer to the original post than my answer.

It gives two divergent points that come to the exact same conclusion -- a perfect start to a thread that could last the winter.

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 23rd, 2002 at 11:44 AM]

[bluezebra]

I found that understanding the DEFINITIONS section of the rule book(s) is necessary to learning the rest of the rules.

Bob

[Tim C]

I have always intoned to the masses that in ANY sport a good official knows and understands the definitions of the words in the rules so they can open the door to the knowledge behind those rules.

Great point!

[phillycheese]

Philly I understand that Pete was just trying to start a thread. I answered that by giving almost a view 180* different than his feelings, I cannot think that there would be a BETTER answer to the original post than my answer.

It gives two divergent points that come to the exact same conclusion -- a perfect start to a thread that could last the winter.

Hey, works for me. And yes, the fresh crab is good. In fact, Thanksgiving Dinner, besides the turkey, included fresh crab and oysters. Too bad I don't golf much though- what little spare time I get is used up officiating- plus, they went and made me LL President this year, so no more trying out newfangled mechanics theory on the small diamond for me.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Tim C

An umpire does NOT "need" any knowledge of the history of rules to be a great umpire.

Peter it does not matter WHERE a rule comes from or how it came to being. The ONLY important thing is that an umpire knows WHAT rule book is in effect for the game he is working at that moment.

Tee I agree somewhat but IMO it helps to better officiate a game if we know the PURPOSE of the rule. Perhpas using the term "History of the rules" was not accurate, but it helps in knowing the purpose of the rule so that we don't Over Officiate.

A good example is a Nit-Picken Rule which is the 20 second rule for F1. I ONLY enforced this rule once and that is because F1 was being a Real wise you know what. But generally speaking that rule is NEVER enforced, but is there for a reason.

Some rules one can fully understand as Bob suggested by simply reading the definition section but others are not "crystal clear" (If they were, there would be no need for many authoritative books).

So while I agree we don't need to know where the rule came from IMO it helps to know it's purpose. Since you mentioned Carl, in his book 51 ways to ruin a baseball game, he mentions the situation where F1 disengages the pitcher's plate improperly (the phrase used was the coach saying " hey Bubba go from the set). The runners are stationary (going nowhere) should we enforce? (BTW this was another heated debate if memory serves)

At least for me it helps to know the purpose of the rule to better enforce.

Pete Booth