|
The difference I see is when we are bashing someone who isn't part of the discussion; remembering you started with a hearsay report of what another umpire told you that happened and what the UIC then told him. Obviously, if that was all completely correct, then the UIC was wrong.
But, we have no way of knowing, Crocker isn't part of the discussion, and hasn't directly said or done anything. Yet we are naming him and now casting for other cases where umpires have disagreed with him.
There is a reason why hearsay is not legal testimony. And, I see a difference in bashing someone who may have been completely correct, may have been misquoted, may have been taken out of context, and can't respond appropriately. That is different than what you cite (although I sometimes wonder why that approach is taken, too, I have also been accused of being rude, when I felt my responses were not inappropriate).
I'm not from Texas, but I know Crocker from National meetings and the Advanced School several years ago. He has an authoritative air about him; and you certainly could be accurate. But, I just don't want to see this forum lowered to that level; I'm not protecting him, I am protecting our ability to converse in a meaningful and educated way, without resorting to namecalling.
Just my opinion.
|