ASA Qeustion #50.

[Skahtboi]

How did you reach that conclusion, Buddha? When, according to the rulebook, are the only times that umpire interference may be called?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by buddha69
A

Are you saying you answered "A"?

You might want to go back and read what situations may result in an umpire interference call.

Another learning exercise on this question: look up the definitions of "interference" and "obstruction."

[buddha69]

DDDDDDD

[Dakota]

Originally posted by buddha69
DDDDDDD

BTW, since I joined this thread late, let me also say,

Welcome to the board!

BTW #2, A-C on that question were wrong, as I hinted, on two levels: the situation presented is not the ONE situation where umpire interference can be called, and even if there was a rule for that situation, it would be Umpire OBSTRUCTION!

[CecilOne]

Any possibility in any code of rectifying a problem if it is clearly the umpire's fault (Rule 10 or whatever)?

[buddha69]

Thanks,

Like I said in the early part of my thread. It is tricky!!! I did not know that you (guys and gals) had it like that. It is really going to open my eyes now.

thanks for the help guys,


you know I will be asking alot of question for this year. until I get my feet wet. lol

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

I completely disagree with your complete disagreement! Actually, I don't completely disagree, I just liked the sound of saying that! What I do say is that this is entirely individual. Some people need the specific examples of the case book to put the rules into context, to help them visualize the application, and to learn it. This is pretty close to the advice given in the Umpire Manual, "To know the rules thoroughly requires constand and analytical study. It does not suffice to only read the rules. They must be studied so that mental pictures of plays and situations result." The case book can be a big help in putting the rules to work in real situations. My advice to a new umpire would be to read the rule book cover to cover. Then go back and study it thoroughly. Then, when you think you are ready, use the case book as a test. Cover the ruling of each case play, read the play, give your ruling (looking up the rules if you need to), and then uncover the ruling to read the official answer. Very effective learning technique, IMO.

Okay, I understand it's use as a tool, but I still have a problem with people possibly using it as a replacement to the learning the rules, sort of putting the cart before the horse thing.

As far as any errors, it is written for people to read. Many of the people in this country would strain to comprehend many of the rules if presented in 100% error-free.

True, but that does not mean errors help. Also, but that does not excuse poor syntax that actually contributes to misunderstanding, or poor choice of words that must be explained extensively in POEs and still results in inconsistent understanding, etc. The ASA rule book could benefit greatly by being gone over by a good umpire who is also an English teacher. Do you know any? [/B][/QUOTE]

Any idea why people don't read some of the old classics? The people I know consider many Dickens and Shakespeare workds to be to difficult to comprehend. There are concentrating so hard on understanding the words, they cannot visualize the scene. Granted, they are younger folks, but like it or not, they are the next generation of umpires and coaches.

Anyone study ASL (American Sign Language)? If you have, you are well aware that proper syntax and grammar are extremely overrated in the art of communication.

I agree that actual contradictions should be corrected, but not by someone who is going parse each phrase and then grade the work because it that is what works for them.


Someone can author anything from poetry to instructions for using a belt buckle. It can be perfectly composed, yet it isn't worth an out-of-play foul ball with two strikes in a FP game if the people to whom it is directed have a difficult time understanding it. After all, is that not why some writers opt for prose in lieu of poetry?

Anyone here ever start putting a model together by throwing out the instructions? With the exception of Roger, how many on this board can leisurely read most legal notices or writ? Before PlugNPlay, how many have tried to install hardware/software on a computer using strictly the written set of instructions? Ever try reading a dictionary?

I am not saying imperfections should be ignored, but there should definitely be allowances made for a succinct compilation of related rules without fear of the grammar police.

JMHO,

[greymule]

The ASA rule book could benefit greatly by being gone over by a good umpire who is also an English teacher.

Glad to hear somebody say that. An expert in writing methods and procedures would be the ideal candidate. Somebody who writes instructions for how Bristol-Myers Squibb or GlaxoSmithKline employees should operate the machines that manufacture drugs cannot leave anything open to interpretation.

I have toyed with the idea of rewriting the ASA book from beginning to end, keeping the good, recasting the bad, marking the areas of ambiguity as items to resolve, and then submitting it to ASA as a fait accompli. If they were presented with a document they judged to be an improvement, they might accept it.

Cleaning up the index, which has long contained mis-references, wouldn't take more than a few hours. Mike is right that the overall organization of the book is fine.

I did teach high school English in the early 1970s, but that in itself is not really a qualification to write M&Ps. By coincidence, our principal was Robert F. Kanaby, who is now the executive director of NFHS. A few years ago, I was going to approach him about polishing the Fed book, but then I stopped doing Fed.

I think rewriting the book might be fun if I could submit sections to our "committee" of posters for review and criticism. Would anyone agree to serve on the board of contributing editors? With the combined brainpower and experience of this board, we could produce a masterpiece.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
Would anyone agree to serve on the board of contributing editors? With the combined brainpower and experience of this board, we could produce a masterpiece.

As an engineer, I had the unique (or at least rare) situation of having my freshman English professor try to talk me into changing majors to English. The use of language has always been a side interest of mine, and I have written more than a few technical documents, including a few instruction manuals.

However, I can't imagine we would get the official assignment from ASA to do this, so I fear it would be a big waste of time.

Mike, I'm not talking about verbosity or grammar or dangling participles or the correct use of who vs whom. I'm talking about unclear wording, seeming contradictions, and just plain mysterious wording. The ASA book is NOT rife with these, but it could benefit from some professional clean-up. However, it would need to be done by someone who already understands what the rule / POE means, or things could get really hosed.

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by greymule
I think rewriting the book might be fun if I could submit sections to our "committee" of posters for review and criticism. Would anyone agree to serve on the board of contributing editors?

In a heartbeat! I would even be willing to take a section or two myself and do the rewriting.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

As an engineer, I had the unique (or at least rare) situation of having my freshman English professor try to talk me into changing majors to English. The use of language has always been a side interest of mine, and I have written more than a few technical documents, including a few instruction manuals.

However, I can't imagine we would get the official assignment from ASA to do this, so I fear it would be a big waste of time.

Mike, I'm not talking about verbosity or grammar or dangling participles or the correct use of who vs whom. I'm talking about unclear wording, seeming contradictions, and just plain mysterious wording. The ASA book is NOT rife with these, but it could benefit from some professional clean-up. However, it would need to be done by someone who already understands what the rule / POE means, or things could get really hosed.

That is an important point. However, I equate English teachers with pompous chefs who adapt and serve dishes to their personal liking and damn the customer. Many adjust, other just lose interest.

But then again, I'm talking about my teachers who would just as well correct your grammar while calling for help after being run over.

[greymule]

Someone can author anything from poetry to instructions for using a belt buckle. It can be perfectly composed, yet it isn't worth an out-of-play foul ball with two strikes in a FP game if the people to whom it is directed have a difficult time understanding it. After all, is that not why some writers opt for prose in lieu of poetry?

There's a common misconception that good writing must be fancy, convoluted, and hard to understand. Our teachers told us that Shakespeare was great, and because the words and structure of Elizabethan English are unfamiliar to modern-day readers, we associate great writing with difficulty in comprehension. Shakespeare was not difficult for his audiences. Dickens and Poe crafted long and complicated sentences. Therefore, people assume, good writing must involve long and complicated sentences.

This idea has been reinforced by the schools. Remember when some major project was due and everyone was asking, "How long is your paper?" The smart kids turned in a lot of pages and got a good grade, right? They also wrote long, complicated sentences.

The teacher loved it when we used "better" words in our writing, too. Doesn't demonstrate indicate more intelligence than show? Why use if when in the event that sounds more impressive and helps fill up the page? Weren't salubrious and desuetude on the list of vocabulary words? Hey, let's fit them in somehow.

These unfortunate "lessons" are the root of much of the poor business and professional writing we see today. But anybody can write impressive sounding gobbledygook. (Legal writing often cannot be put into language the average person can grasp easily. A statute can't say simply "if anyone has a claim on this property," because "claim" might not include warrants, mortgages, liens, etc. Also, "anyone" might fail to cover non-human legal entities.)

Anyway, the idea is not to create a literary classic out of the rule book. The point is to use clear, precise, accurate, unambiguous language. That's not as easy as it sounds. It's an art, too, except that the rule book has nothing to say about life, death, man's inhumanity to man, love, God, sin, ambition, etc. Nobody's expecting phrases so striking that they will become part of everyday language (though you could make a case for "travesty of the game"). The rule book will not have a profound effect on anyone; it contains no revelations; it is not improved by being translated into great poetry.

As far as the grammar police go, nobody really cares about minor technical violations in a rule book. But usually correcting the grammar aids in understanding.

As for faulty syntax:

ASA book: "In the Slow Pitch game, any fair fly ball touched by a defensive player on either side of the fence that clears or has cleared the fence in fair territory, should be declared a four-base award and shall not be included in the total of over-the-fence home runs."

Revision: "In the Slow Pitch game, any fair fly ball that is touched, on either side of the fence, by a defensive player and that clears or has cleared the fence in fair territory shall be declared a four-base award and shall not be included in the total of over-the-fence home runs."

[TexBlue]

buddha69, keep on researching the question. If "A" was just a guess, quote the rule for us, that you used to come up with your next answer. Heck, by the time you finish with this one, you'll never forget the answer, once you find it

[greymule]

I equate English teachers with pompous chefs who adapt and serve dishes to their personal liking and damn the customer.

There are certainly people who like to feel superior to others by correcting their grammar and word usage. Many people, for example, view President Bush with contempt and condescension because his sentences sometimes don't hang together and he sometimes mispronounces words (like nuclear). It is entertaining to hear the pseudo-sophisticates talk, though. They are constantly using whom where who belongs, uttering erudite phrases like "just between she and I," and mispronouncing fancy words whose meaning they don't really know. But it makes them sound intelligent (they think).

Remember when the teacher asked you what you did over the weekend, and you answered, "Me and Peter went to the circus"? The teacher then told you not to say "me and Peter" but instead to say "Peter and I." So now business executives write sentences like "please send the information to Peter and I." There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of common errors that stem from faulty explanations in school.

[TexBlue]

So, GreyMule, how do you really feel about the English teachers of today. I tell you what, after reading yours, Mike's and several others, I'm just glad I got out of English and have a passable understanding of the language. I feel fortunate.

By the way, how did all your posts get in ahead of mine? When I sent my previous post, buddha69 hadn't even given the answer ( the correct one ) yet.