[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by L.G. Dorsey
So for the good of this board, I'd urge everyone to take a step back and forget whatever insults, attacks, or barbs you may have perpetrated or been a victim of and answer questions without extraneous comments. As Joe Friday always said "Just the facts, ma'am".Lawrence

I want to discuss three concerns. First, let me give you a little history. Second, let me explain for you four areas of intense disagreement. Finally, let me pledge to improve this Board.

This all began a couple of years ago in an obscure newsgroup called rec.sport.officiating. I dropped in, mentioned someone had directed me to the place, and everyone welcomed me. "Gosh, it's the famous Carl from the magazine." So I was asked questions, and I posted answers. I didn't always give citations; I assumed (bad idea) that most would accept what I said as accurate. I'm not talking about opinion; I'm talking about a rule. There were (are) a couple of "big men on the little pond" there who simply went postal. I replied in kind. That was the beginning of the "bullying" charge, the "condescension" charge, the “arrogant” charge.

For over a quarter of a century I had been giving speeches and clinics all over the United States and writing articles and books; I had published the BRD. I received (and still do) phone calls from various parts of the world to give my "ruling" on various knotty problems. I was simply unaccustomed to the attack of two men who were essentially amateurs who mostly call kids who don't shave. They accepted nothing I said as accurate.

Well, I couldn't have achieved the success I had without being right some of the time. Now here's the funny part (and anyone can look up the archives): I would find myself belittled by a man who never posted his own rationale, I would reply in kind, and I would be the one at fault. Lawrence, you cannot imagine the culture shock I underwent in two months at that place at the hands of those two and a very small coterie of their sycophants.

So I put together a group of officials, many of whom disagreed often with my positions, and called it UmpireTalk. Three of the five people in this Forum who generally attack either me or my positions were members of that group at one time. A fourth asked at least five times to be accepted. The fifth is new to the Internet and has never applied.

During the next months UT, as it was called, grew to nearly 100 members and included almost all of the prolific Internet posters on baseball. The debate was spirited, sometimes profane; the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune went back and forth on many issues. There were no parties, however. Warren Willson and I slugged it out, metaphorically speaking, several times. Warren can be almost as pig-headed as I can. Garth Benham on many occasions told me I ought to .... Well, he told me!

The breakup of the original UT started with an argument about ethics. Should an umpire call by the rules, or should he call the way his assignor wanted him to. (Does that sound familiar?) After constant attack by one member of the community I founded, and after he ignored several warnings, I simply dumped him. He has admitted on McGriff's that he consistently escalated the venomous nature of his personal attack, just to see how much I could take, how far he could go.

What I'm saying, Lawrence, is that you are listening to a continuation of animosity that goes back even before the creation of the Forum.

I have complained several times about a small group of posters who always disagree with my positions. Always! Can I be that wrong? Always?

I think not. But here's what happens. I post, and let's say an umpire from the "opposition" (how about the one who got all upset because he thought I denigrated all Little League umpires) agrees with my position. Not a word from him. Well, others at the Board can't look at a thread and say: "Ah, ha, he finally agrees with Carl because he didn't call him out." But before long, I will post something else, and he will ride in on his white charger, come to save the day and protect all those umpires who just call the kids who sleep with teddy bears.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not sugarcoat my "opinion," suggestions, "rulings," reports, or ideas. I am at the computer perhaps 10 hours a day. I have multiple responsibilities to Right Sports and to eTeamz. I have clinics to prepare and books to write. I deal with perhaps 100 emails each day. I simply cannot take time to walk through an answer to a rules problem -- again and again. I am asked my “opinion”; I give it, and the one who asked suddenly decides my “opinion” is foolish. Why ask, then?

Here's a flash: If I say the rule is thus-and-so, the odds are very strong in my favor that the rule is thus-and-so. There are some on the Internet who simply cannot accept that as true, and won't accept that I have a right to assert it. Lawrence, history proves I am right far more often than I am wrong, and there are those who just grow green and red when they hear me make that statement.

So be it!

You are a careful observer, and so I'm sure you have noted that my writings grow out a consistent philosophy, one that hasn't changed in many, many years. I am loud, many times obnoxious; I am never guilty of false pride (I'm good, and I know it!); I do not suffer fools gladly, for I'm 64 in April. (Shakespeare's birthday: I always took that as a good omen.) I do not mind the tendency of many on the Internet to wish harm to the messenger because they don't like the message. But the corollary angers me very much. I cannot abide those who dislike the message simply because they despise the messenger.

Second: The arguments I’ve had here and elsewhere are usually about four issues. Let me share with you and others who visit here my hope for the future of umpires of amateur games (© Bob Jenkins, 2000) based on my understanding of those issues.

1. It’s all the rage now to rail against the high school game played under the National Federation (FED) rules. FED bashing, led by a well-known San Francisco umpire who has not yet posted here, does not improve our lives as officials or the lives of the kids for whom we call. The Federation spends thousands of dollars each year to research rules issues; they know what their coaches and administrators like. The know what their officials like. Since I came onto the Internet, I have consistently supported the FED game and their right to set their rules, irrespective of the Official Rules. That has not gained me many friends. My feeling is simple: If you don’t like the FED rules, don’t call their game. But if you take their money, do it their way. You owe them loyalty. My hope: We have an evolving brotherhood of umpires dedicated to following the dictates of organizations they call for.

2. A second drag on umpires of amateur games is the undue influence of the failed graduates of PRO schools. First: Those schools do exactly what they set out to do. They are perfect for the umpires who call professional ball. Nobody does that better. But two principles that work for pros are disastrous for us: (a) the rat mentality; and (b) selfishness. PRO schools teach that the baseball diamond is filled with two groups: rats and umpires. That’s great when you’re dealing with Lou Piniella; it’s awful when your “adversary” is Coach Garza, whose son delivers your morning newspaper. Even worse is the lack of teamwork that grows out of “I’ll get my plays, by God, and you get yours.” Again and again I have jousted with those who just won’t ask for help or accept help from their partners. Moving up in professional ranks, the umpire quickly learns that evaluators look to see how an individual umpire performs. If you bail your partner out of trouble, he may get a better rating than you. We can’t afford that selfish approach. There are plenty of legal ways to work as a team. My hope: We can regain our associations from the PRO mentality.

3. Probably 75 percent of my most heated debates have concerned mechanics: who goes where, and when. How do we cover the outfield? Who goes to third? Where should I stand to see the plate? The current two-man system is very like the current OBR: It just growed. Over the years we added a whistle here, took off a bell there, brushed the nap, and swept off some of the muck. But there has never been an abiding force behind what we do on the diamond. Joe Brinkman admitted in his book, The Umpire’s Manual, that the PRO schools teach a system of mechanics only because that facilitates their evaluation of candidate umpires. When someone says, “That’s the way the PROs do it,” you now know why they do it. It has little to do with “calling good,” and everything to do with “looking good.” In contrast, I’ve spent a lifetime thinking about how to cover the diamond and testing my theories. I’ve been aided by hundreds of officials in my association and in other groups around the US. I know now there is a better way. I have the evidence to prove it. Yet the constant refrain is: “We can’t do that because our supervisor won’t like it“or We can’t do that because that’s not the way it’s done.” Almost everyone who debates with me admits they have never tried it my way. My system, known as Mechanics for the 21st Century, works because it has two principles behind every mechanic: (1) An umpire should be waiting at the base to make the call. (2) An umpire should position himself for the most likely play. My hope: We can objectively analyze what our duties as umpires are and shed our attachment to the past simply because of tradition.

4. The NCAA and FED have rule books that constantly evolve to meet the changing conditions of their games. The OBR changes its rules about as often as Billy Graham cusses. Thousands of associations, hundreds of UICs and rules interpreters: Where is the consistency? Aren’t we kidding ourselves? There is very little. Evidence? Read the posts on baseball. There is a better way. There are official interpretations available: The PBUC offers them through the manual of the NAPBL and the BRD. Failing an official ruling, the umpire can use authoritative opinion: Jim Evans, Chris Jaksa/Rick Roder, Knotty Problems, etc. Yet again and again there is resistance when I report that custom/usage dictate the play should be handled this way; that the minor league staff reported we should rule that way. One who constantly bemoans my opinions here argues that it’s flat wrong to use the PRO interpretations for the amateur game. He’s missed the boat. It’s wrong to use their mechanics, for they were developed for a different game. It’s right to use their interpretations because that insures consistency. If Carl follows one guideline, but Warren follows another, then nobody knows whom to follow.

Briefly, then, my side of the four issues is:

1. Support the organization that hires you.
2. Resist the iconoclastic teaching that applies PRO philosophy to the amateur game.
3. Examine objectively new ideas about mechanics.
4. Accept willingly official interpretations and authoritative opinion.

Lawrence: There are always two parties: in politics, in baseball, in life. We are, it seems, inevitably divided into liberals and conservatives. I count myself a liberal — proudly. I venerate the past, but I look forward to the future.

I contend that I have always had the best interest at heart for umpires of the amateur game. I want us to be better. There are cynics everywhere. They are, in fact, the Neo-Know-Nothings. Listen to the line they preach:

1. Do as your assignor says or you won’t advance.
2. If enforcing that rule upsets the coaches, don’t enforce it.
3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real?
4. A system of mechanics isn’t necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand.
5. Umpiring ain’t that hard.
6. Who needs to know the rules?
7. The customer is always right.

I’m sorry, Lawrence, but those are simply attitudes I cannot willingly accept. If those statements represent the future of umpires of amateur games, then I want no part of it.

After 2100 words, I have reached my third concern. I created an anonymous identify, called Eric Redfern, on McGriff’s. My idea was over a period of time to demonstrate that who we are sometimes gets needlessly in the way of what we say. I accidentally revealed that, and I received quite a bit of “bad press.” I pledged at that time I would never again post anonymously on that (or any) Board. I have kept that pledge.

Here, at the Forum provided by Right Sports, who also pay me for my books and articles, I pledge I will not engage in back-and-forth name-calling. I referred to a group as the Gas House Gang. Since one of the group took offense, I am sorry for that reference, and I apologize. Someone may argue that "Neo-Know-Nothings," which I attached to the same group of umpires, is also name-calling. Not so. Those steeped in history will recognize immediately that I have attached to them a name that reminds us of a certain era. Today, I have described their approach to issues; before, I simply described their methods and spirit.

But this, too, must be said:

1. I do not apologize for my positions on the four issues I’ve outlined here.
2. I will vigorously defend them in debate against anyone.
3. I will continue to point out where the dissent seems attached to the messenger rather than the message.

Rodney King (and now Lawrence Dorsey) bemoaned our fate: “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is simple: Because we are human beings, and human beings disagree. Your plea for civility is laudable but probably futile. Men of strong opinions disagree strongly. That’s the nature of dialectic. The two parties to this Board will continue their disputes, but as you say, hopefully over the issues.

I assure you I will be as nice about it as I can.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 10th, 2001 at 07:29 AM]