Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
QUOTE]
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]
|
If I may summarize some replies, a good appearance:
1) Commands respect
2) Indicates good training
3) Is (apparently) a difficult target for some Smittys.
I understand the first two (though 2 can easily be a false test), but I'm surprised at number 3.
I deal with Little League(tm) umpires at two ends of a spectrum. Before the beginning of the season, I meet with a few dozen (usually coerced) volunteers that may not even know the basic rules of baseball. I have about 8 hours (if they show up at all) to get them ready for their first time officiating a game on their own. I spend about 1/2 an hour on appearance, then move onto the basics of balls/strikes, catch/no-catch, fair/foul, and some very plate and field rudimentary mechanics. I know that if the league can't afford to buy them shirts, they'll be wearing sandals, shorts, and Hawaiian shirts out there. (I saw shin guards over shorts at least once this year. I've learned not to laugh or cry.) There will also be strikes called because the bat wasn't pulled back on an attempted bunt, and though I hope that nobody calls the hands part of the bat, it wouldn't really surprise me. In this case, though, these folks are listening, but I don't have the time to really drive the lessons home. If they get hooked, they'll be back next year, and they'll hear it better. These folks don't have enough experience to be Smittys yet.
At the end of the season the most interested of these umpires gather for the tournaments. Some have just completed their first year of umpiring and are pretty excited; others have been working these tournaments for 20 years. The newer folks are eager to learn, the old hands are willing to teach. I've never seen anybody reject advice, or even the arbitrary direction of the plate umpire. (For example, with random crews put together at 30 minutes before game time, we always need to settle on a rotation: will BUs go out or not. This decision depends on the comfort of the PU, and I've never seen it argued with. We say, "Yes, Boss," and take the field.)
I'm not saying that I've never met Smitty. Heck, I often do a pretty good impersonation myself. But I rarely see an umpire that isn't trying to get better. Maybe it's because there's no pay to attract the real Smittys.
-LL