I always thought that one mark against the judge-umpire analogy is that lawyers could never talk to judges the way managers talk to umpires. Someone pointed out that this did not undermine the analogy. Rather, it is about established expectations and rules--lawyers and judges interact under a set of rules, while umpires and judges operate under a different set. And Weaver may have had his own set. So, enjoy.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
R.I.P., Earl Weaver
My wife is an Orioles fan, who grew up in Earl Weaver's heyday in the 1970s and early '80s. And I grew up watching the original A.L. East and always found him entertaining. So Weaver's passing brought back fond memories of his famous (and infamous) arguments with umpires.
I always thought that one mark against the judge-umpire analogy is that lawyers could never talk to judges the way managers talk to umpires. Someone pointed out that this did not undermine the analogy. Rather, it is about established expectations and rules--lawyers and judges interact under a set of rules, while umpires and judges operate under a different set. And Weaver may have had his own set. So, enjoy.
I always thought that one mark against the judge-umpire analogy is that lawyers could never talk to judges the way managers talk to umpires. Someone pointed out that this did not undermine the analogy. Rather, it is about established expectations and rules--lawyers and judges interact under a set of rules, while umpires and judges operate under a different set. And Weaver may have had his own set. So, enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment