Matt13 posted:
I think you're missing the point of competition in this case. With any skill, if you're not getting better, you're getting worse. For officials, the ends aren't to be the best simply for being the best; it's to be the best possible official because that's what we want to be. This is no difference than being a Dr. Andrews or something like that...he's not putting the time into his craft to win awards; he's doing it to provide the best possible service and to be in demand.
Wanting to be the best at one’s endeavor has nothing to do with anything other than one’s internal makeup and pride in self. The “best” don’t need rewards to prove they’re the best. That proof comes from their peers and their own honest self-evaluation. But how does any of that bear on the topic?
No one would lose their job, in fact if anything it would create jobs for more umpires. The outcome of games wouldn’t hinge on someone’s honest mistake, purposeful wrongful call, the fans in the stands, or other things that right now have an effect.
The entire purpose, at least for me, is to make the “playing field” more even and provide rewards and penalties for what actually takes place. It’s not an indictment on anyone. It’s just that technology can do a much better job than human beings.