[JRutledge]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Jeff,
I will try to be polite here, but I can't help asking, "What?".

We don't care about labels or towering our mastery of the craft over newer umpires. Several of us have used the Big Dog reference simply to establish that veteran umpires sometimes act more important than they should. We know that each official is equal, that is not a phenomenon unique to baseball. I have witnessed poor officiating and communication skills between officials in many sports.

I have only heard this term as it relates to baseball umpires. I have worked with some very successful basketball officials and I have never heard them even try to refer to themselves as "bigger" than anyone. Of course there are egos with other sports officials, but they seem to treat their fellow official as an equal while they are on the court. I worked a basketball game with two State Title Basketball officials in a very big game that was on TV. Neither treated me any differently than an equal. They did not try to minimize my accomplishments or pump up their abilities over me. I was just another guy (at least that is how they treated me).

Now I think about it, I can think of one basketball officials that treated me like a pee-on and no one wants to work with him. He has worked basketball for almost 40 years and he has more enemies than I have friends. And his enemies are not "lightweights."

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
What we are talking about here is how to work together to get the right call made. No one has suggested that the protocol involves belittling one official and taking the glory as the senior partner. Look at the example that started this. MLB has set a larger than life example of how to get the call made correctly.

I understand that, but it always seems to come back to "who is the big dog?" I have not problem with coming up with solutions to get calls right, but who the hell cares if the big dog is on the game. It seems to me if you have the respect of your partner than your opinion might carry some weight. And your reputation will be very obvious.

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
High school baseball has one or two umpires charged with watching many things. We certainly won't see every call the way we would with one or two more partners. However, we can and do see flagrantly inappropriate rulings and judgement calls. (Crawford's foul ball is a perfect example.) When this happens and we can get tgether and avoid making a mockery of our job, we should make every attempt to work together and accomplish this. That is all that this discussion is about.

You could have fooled me. Because I have heard people make constant comments of which Crawford is and what his experience means. I have barely read anything about the actual call. More, "if I am the big dog, I am changing a little dog's call."

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
If you don't feel that you can work this way, fine. If you have the opportunity to work at the next level, it will certainly be the way it is done. No one likes having their judgement questioned, it's humiliating. But we've all been in the car for the ride home, kicking ourselves because of a call we made. If I can do something about it on the field, I have saved myself from another drive of shame. I'm sure you are the same way...we are harder on ourselves that any guy with an evaluation form.

I am very critical of my own performance on the field. I also know of situations where I might not have made the best call. But I do not see how my partners could help me out one what is my judgment. Most of those calls my partner (if they are doing their job) are not watching me or my call. I have had post game talks about calls and situations I did not see that my partner did not feel good about.

I am not telling you that I feel you are right or wrong. I think there is some truth to what you guys are saying. But I guess there seems to be too much preoccupation to who is on the game. We should go into games seeing each others as equals.

Peace