[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.

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.

Carl,

I'd like to take your short "test" of fidelity to baseball and officiating. I know I wasn't invited directly, but it might help Steve, L.G. and others if someone makes the first move to declare their position on the issues you have raised.

1. Support for the organisation that hires you:

Absolutely. They pay the fees and they get my best efforts to call the game the way they expect. If there is conflict with the rules as written or interpreted I will STILL call it their way if they have put that "way" in writing for my personal protection (an Australian insurance issue that may not affect y'all).

2. Resist the iconoclastic teaching that applies Pro philosophy to the amateur game:

No question. The players, managers and coaches I deal with are volunteers and unlike me they don't get paid even in reimbursement of their expenses. I respect them for that. I treat them in accordance with that respect. They are NOT the "rats" referred to at pro schools in my book. Confrontation with them is NOT on my agenda when I walk onto the diamond. I am there to call the game in accordance with the principles outlined in OBR 9.01, not to saw them off at the knees every time they approach me. That more gentle philosophy is appropriate to the amateur game.

3. Examine objectively new ideas about mechanics:

All the time! I accept relatively few, and because of the structure of baseball in my country I can apply none of my own volition. That doesn't mean I cannot see the absolute sense or value in some of the proposed changes. I accept relatively few such ideas because they must show me proven advantages over the existing approved methods. "New" does not ipso facto equate with "good". There are, however, many "good" and "new" mechanics proposed from time to time.

4. Accept willingly official interpretations and authoritative opinion:

No matter what! I accept and approve the system that gives me official interpretations and authoritative opinion to help me know what is right and proper in the rules of the game I love. I couldn't be without these devices. Does this mean I blindly accept, much less willingly accept, individual interpretations that I perceive to be wrong, foolish or otherwise valueless? No, it doesn't but if I am required to apply those interpretations anyway then I most certainly will. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my way should prevail, even over the official sources and recognised authorities.

You also asked how people felt about the 7-headed hydra of philosophies outlined above. Here are my brief opinions on those philosophies.

1. Do as your assignor says or you won't advance:

The clear implication here is "even if what he says is wrong". I can't do that. If I have to sacrifice what I know is right to the politics of "go along to get along" then I'd rather not get along. It is criminal that apparently some assignors WILL inhibit the advancement of some officials from political rather than professional motivations. If we condone that by acquiescence, we are equally guilty. Our advancement may well have been at the expense of someone who deserved it more. That said, I don't often disagree with my assignor, so it is no trouble to do what he says. I certainly don't go against his wishes without the assurance of absolutely certainty that what he proposes runs counter to the wishes of my league and the ABF on the question.

2. If enforcing a rule upsets the coaches, don't enforce it:

Nuts! The Germans may not have understood that response in WWII, but I have no doubt most of the readers here will understand it! I don't work for the coaches and I don't work to PLEASE the coaches. I am the representative of the league and baseball and I take that charter seriously.

3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real:

The clear implication is that Carl might report a false interpretation for some personal motive. Brazil NUTS! As an author and educator Carl Childress lives or dies by his reputation. Why on earth would such a person risk terminal damage to that reputation by deliberately misreporting an official interpretation? It doesn't make sense, and I prefer theories to at least make sense before I can espouse them.

4. A system of mechanics isn't necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand:

I don't know what idiot put this one forward, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the same idiot would be the first one on an umpire's case for getting a call wrong because he wasn't in the best position to make that call. Of course mechanics are important, no matter what the fans or participants might care to think about where we stand. It is the result they care about, and the best possible results cannot be regularly found without sound mechanics.

5. Umpiring ain't that hard:

There is much that I like about T Alan and his philosophies on life and baseball. He might be surprised to learn that. Unfortunately, while I understand the principle espoused here I certainly don't agree with this philosophy. It speaks to an attitude that near enough is good enough and good enough will always do. On the contrary, we should ALWAYS strive to improve, if even by the smallest of margins, wherever improvement is possible. As I have said elsewhere, umpiring like Life is a process of continual adjustment to the demands of our occupation. When you become complacent about making those adjustments I believe, as D.W. Hughes once suggested, you become a failure at that occupation. Failure at anything is not something I surrender to willingly. Tee, of course it's hard. To plagiarise Jimmy Dugan from A League Of Their Own, "It's the 'hard' that makes it great!"

6. Who needs to know the rules:

WE do guldarnit! I believe the COACHES do as well, but I am not their keeper. I also believe it couldn't hurt the players to know them too! Shoot, our jobs would be whole lot easier and certainly more pleasant if we didn't have to defend every decision against ignorance! Know your self and know your occupation (including its rules). There is NO OTHER WAY to success in ANY occupation.

7. The customer is always right:

Which customer? People who espouse this philosophy invariably, at least in my personal experience, don't know who the customer really is! Umpiring baseball is NOT a popularity contest. You don't have to dance and dress to please the judges! You have a higher responsibility to your league and to baseball, BOTH. When there is conflict one with the other, choose baseball and move on. We are the guardians of this great game on the diamond. Our role in it is not as the prostitute who sells her favour to the highest bidder. Despite what some believe, there is more to officiating the game than the money to be earned from exercising the power it confers. Some people will never see beyond the money. Fine. Just don't expect me to agree.

I believe that does it. Any other takers for this pledge of allegiance to officiating baseball?

Cheers,