Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Quote:
Originally posted by LilLeaguer
I'm actually surprised that there isn't more discussion of Mr. Christensen's articles in the Forum. Perhaps many of the regulars aren't also subscribers. I've found them the bright spot in the Baseball section lately; if I renew my subscription, Tee will have most of the credit for it.
In his latest column, he discusses umpire training and working with those that lack it. As do most of you in the Forum, Tee is quick to notice when an umpire appears out of the ordinary.
I wonder what Tee would do if I showed up to work a game with him on the bases. I wouldn't have a ball bag or a "base brush" (I haven't ever carried these on the bases). No clindicator to give me away, as I haven't used one of those on the bases for 4 years or so. My socks match, my shoes are polished, and my one base hat without insignia is navy blue, matching my pullover. If he looks closely, he might see the unfaded spot on my left shoulder.
But I'll probably be a disaster during the game. My 90' two-man mechanics are pretty rusty, and they were never perfect. (I learned "on-the-job" from a pretty good association trained umpire a few years ago; I can't tell if this counts as training or experience.) Most importantly, I don't know squat about FED rules. Tee will eventually catch me as an imposter. It might be when I miss R1's touch at 2B, or perhaps when I fail to call a "gorilla-arm" balk, but I'll eventually be found out.
So, if things like proper mechanics and rules knowledge are really so important, we do we focus on appearance so much? (I include myself in this, or I wouldn't be able to fool Tee in the parking lot.) Why is it important to kick the dirt off of 2B, if necessary, rather than brush it off?
-LL
|
Were you ever in the military? If so, didn't you learn the importance of appearance there? If not, never mind.
|
Several of the earliest "practical" things I learned how to do in my chosen profession have NOTHING to do with how good I am at the actual work: they are all about first impressions and acting like you know what you are doing. Lawyers who do things that they aren't "supposed" to do in court, even harmless, maybe even helpful, minor junk - are universally perceived by civilians as well as other lawyers as less competent. Lawyers who ACT like they are "supposed to" are generally perceived as competent and prepared, even when they are not.
Same deal for umpiring.
Umpires who have been reasonably well trained and who know what they are doing on the field seldom, if ever, do "Look @ ME I'm A Doofus" stuff.
The guys who do such things turn out, much more often than not, to be minimally knowledgeable about rules, mechanics, and game management. They tend, where they do anything at all beyond Ball/Strike/Safe/Out, toward OOO picayune rules enforcement by selective posterior retentiveness. And, now this is key, when told by another umpire "Hey, ditch the BBag and brush on the bases", or other advice: they argue, balk, and sulk about how it "works for {them}", and has "never been a problem" before.
THAT's why we care so much about such "appearances".
[Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 7th, 2005 at 07:16 PM]