[Rich Ives]

"See Rich, when you don't have an argument the tendency is to attack your detractor."

Like you are doing now?

What a load of crap. The "attack" portion was, after all, based on his performance. Performance measurement is my side of the argument. Luke made some sloppy mistakes.

Of course (perhaps because he's an umpire) his response to my post was not an attack - in your eyes.

Luke tells me appearance is important. Well, maybe it is to him. Others certainly share his opinion. It isn't to me, and calling me a rat won't change my opinion.

He also postulates than a banger call will be more readily accepted if the umpire is dressed well. Maybe some coaches will, but I won't, and many others won't. The argument that ensues is based on whether or not we believe the call was correct.

If appearance is so important, why did he fail to clean up his post before submitting it? And why are you defending it? By doing so, aren't you saying that sloppy work is OK?

Perhaps appearance isn't as important as you believe. Perhaps you believe it's important in certain situations, but not others. If so, how do you decide when it matters and when it doesn't?

But whatever view you hold, it does not make my opinion that performance is the measurement invalid.