Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Lyle
Rollie,
There are bad umpire articles out there.
There are awful umpire articles out there.
There are beyond awful umpire articles out there.
There are articles which break new ground for atrociousness and for which new categories must be invented.
Congratulations on your ground breaking article.
|
I'll assume you guys are all subscribers though that's not always a safe assumption these days.
Might I suggest you put your complaints into writing and forward them to RightSports. If you did that, we could know who you are, find out your level of experience, discover what your interests are, decide how much weight to give your opinions.
Better yet: Haven't you been behind the plate, doing what you consider to be a fine job, when some creep behind you begins to butcher you. I've been in this business more than 50 years. The
first year I called, an umpire colleague marched up to a "citizen," handed him his indicator, and said: "You're so good, come do it yourself." Not a year passes that I don't hear a similar story.
Pick a topic, write an article, submit it - and watch it appear. Immediately, you'll recoup your subscription money. So you can wait for Osborne and Christensen
for free, so to speak.
Nearly every time I make this offer, someone says: "Well, I'm not a writer. I just join so I can learn to be a better umpire." We think we can help.
I think Mr. Wiederaenders can help. Remember, we can explain "pause, read, and react" just so many times before we bore everybody to death. How often can we say: Use the Gerry Davis stance, back up a full step behind the catcher, put your nose on the corner, and don't move unless the batter blocks the pitcher's release point: Once a month? Twice a year?
Roland's current series on gray area calls delves deeply into the impact an umpire's philosophy has on the calls he makes. His thesis: Never think that your personal opinions of and reactions to events don't influence your decisions.
We all have preferences. I like pitchers who keep the ball low because that's the best place to put it and not get hurt. Umpires who were catchers, as I was, often give a little bit extra at the knees.
On the other hand, umpires who were pitchers generally prefer the high strike: Batters are not trained to swing level at that pitch at the letters and so find they can't catch up to it. Call a few strikes up there, the batters will try to adjust, and the pitchers will love you as more and more swing and miss.
It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."
We've filled many pages in discussing "the accepted call," the neighborhood play at second, the phantom tag. Mr. Wiederaender's series reminds us there are many other such calls, perhaps some we may not have considered: How do we handle an approaching time limit when one team begins to stall or rush? In summer youth ball, are game control techniques different? Someone complained that Roland talked to a third assistant. I suspect that person doesn't call much summer ball. At least he doesn't work in Texas, where everybody gets in on the action.
What about calls that end a slaughter? (They don't call it a "mercy rule" for nothing.) You've heard more than one umpire say, semi-seriously: "Only a bad umpire lets the game go into extra ininings." Someone in The Forum has a signature that states he will get an out when he needs it.
Mr. Wiederaenders challenges us to think about those types of calls. He argues at one point and that article may not yet have been published that a good technique is to imagine third-world plays (gray area plays) and set up in advance "first-world" solutions. That's not a bad idea. (I think he stole it from Jim Evans: "Surprise is the umpire's worst enemy.")
If you're happiest going over and over what constitutes a balk, you need to let us know "in person," so to speak. Writing on pblic message boards tends to create exaggeration.
If there's a particular topic that interests you, let us know. We'll commission someone (other than Mr. Wiederaenders) to explore your subject.
If you think you can do better than Roland, take your shot. We prefer articles of 800 - 1000 words, sermons rather than text books, illustrations rather than bullets.
Finally, you might email Mr. Wiederaenders directly. Offer some suggestions. Strike up an acquaintance. You might find you have more in common with him than you think.