|
Jim Porter (quoted):
Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.
Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.
Sometimes, folks, a label is not insulting, nor is it intended to be.
However, Jim, sometimes it is insulting especially when one provides his own interpretation of what he means by it (as Childress has). It should be taken as meant to be insulting when the words say just that. If he doesn't mean it, he shouldn't publish it in a public forum !!!
Childress (quoted):
Jon Bible continues to be one of the Neo-Romantics....
...The neo-romantics are lost in a dream world, a fantasy where they believe the adversaries respect right, truth, justice, and the American way. Santa Claus, Cinderella, The Never-Ending Story: "The kids deserve the right call, and Im gonna give it to them.
__________________________________________________ _______
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DDonnelly19
First, the difference between EWS and the rest of us is that we leave our opinions outside the gate when we step onto the field. I may feel that we should "get it right at all costs," but I won't compromise my philosophy with the illegality of changing a call. And who are we to argue what is legal and what is not? If Carl says that "such and such" is an official ruling, I'd bet money he's right.......
.......Until any of us can boast a resume like Carl's, we better take what he says as gospel and move on.
No one has stated a need to get it right "at all costs" Furthermore, I don't feel I compromise my philosophy with the "illegality of changing a call". I have right to and will question Childress "opinion" when it overrides the rulebook. I choose whether to accept his opinion, and I will question his means and methods of delivery of such unofficial "official interpretations".
...I'm having a difficult time accepting the EWS rationale for the legality (or illegality) of the Texas and Moose plays. You claim that Moose's changed call was legal since Moose received more information from his partner after the play, and then changed his call based on that information.
Dennis, I see little difference in Moose's call and the Texas call. Both used poor mechanics but ultimately put "getting the play right" over the "need to protect their dignity (ego)".
...Carl has given his reasons why the two situations are different (sole vs. concurrent jurisdiction), and I would assume that if there were concurrent jurisdiction on Moose's play, we could make the same justifucation for changing the call. So what's the EWS's stance on this?
My opinion, not that of EWS, is that it is ludicrous to try to claim there were two calls on this play. Childress now states, then, that it is okay due to "concurrent jurisdiction". Where was this in the original List of 5 Changeable Calls. Why was not this 6th reason part of the original list if it is now okay to change the call per this reason? I must question the accuracy of the messenger no different than if I were told we received The Ten Commandments from Moses but he needs to add an 11th Commandment!!! Something is wrong here !! How accurate is the original information we are receiveing? Is something changing merely to justify a point of view? Is not that what occurred in Orwelle's "Animal Farm"?
What I see:
---Passing judgement upon Moose improperly
---Hensley justifying Moose's action through the rulebook
---Childress post "no,wrong", take my opinion, not the rulebook---live with the List of 5.
---Infamous Texas / Stanford play occurs
---eUmpire editors trying looking at the Texas play and attempting to justify the outcome by the List of 5.
---Childress saying to Freix, I am talking NCAA not OBR
---Childress uses OBR to qualify "concurrent jurisdiction" position
---postion taken "2 calls on same play"
---Freix states this is ludicrous, all can see only 1 call occurred. The other is merely opinion of U2 provided after coach has extensively complained.
---but "decision" and "call" are the same, PBUC says so in ruling, don't push the issue further and question it
---Freix question, "prove it", "show where I may find it"
---Sorry, not official PBUC ruling---we made mistake
---Freix and others keep saying "you can't put that square peg into that round hole"
---eUmpires editors keep trying to fit square peg into round hole
__________________________________________________ _
The reason Freix is so intent involve the issues here:
---The eUmpires editors and disparaging remarks made to Moose.
---The eUmpires editors saying take my opinion over the rulebook.
---The eUmpire editor(s) saying talk NCAA, not OBR and then use OBR to justify position.
---A List of 5 really needing to be, perhaps, a List of 6 (still wanting to know if this if "official"). But take this and all my other unofficial "official interpretations"
---An applicable "ruling" by PBUC requested to go unquestioned, which in fact, is found to be inapplicable when, indeed, questioned.
INCONSISTENCY amongst eUmpire editors in their position and methods. We do as we wish and say to justify what we desire. You however, are wrong in using the same methods or even questioning our methods.
Despite those who do not like the posts of Freix, he is consistent in his approach. That being, don't expect me to accept doctrine, provide me proof of why. Don't be afraid to question the "experts" whether they like it or not---make them provide legitimate answers. Highlight the insults and negative inuendo for all to see. Don't let others double-talk their way around the obvious.
Understand the game and the intent of the rules, and do my job to maintain fainess and balance by the rules and by the interpretations made available to me, the umpire.
Just my opinion, to those who may want it and to those who understandably don't
Steve
Member
EWS
[Edited by Bfair on Feb 26th, 2001 at 03:48 PM]
|