|
I do not believe for a second that an "eduator" worth his salt wasn't behaving in a demeaning and sarcastic way. You did it again within this post. Since this is my first communication with you in a very long time, I am disappointed. I do not know your position on this latest play. I spent a little time before replying to Tim and you, I could not find a single record of a player saying "Go". When was this discussed last?
Your cheap shot was less of a sting than a character fault on your part. I felt no need to act like a child in return. Since you feel it is obvious that I hang my hat on one ruling, I suggest you read some of my latest opinions. I am a "get it right" umpire. I don't believe in cheating the players or the game. I have held this stance since pro school and that is a very long time ago. My evangelizing was met with contempt and mockery two years ago. Now MLB and the NCAA have embraced the concept. It seems like I may have more insight to the issues than you feel comfortable acknowledging.
Do you feel uncomfortable agreeing with me or can you make an articulate stance and defend your ruling? I don't subscribe to the theory that some are unwilling to learn. As there are no bad questions, there are no bad students. All good teachers are preachers of a sort.
How would you rule on the play being discussed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim,
My education was not the result of a scholarship or student loans. Working two jobs each summer and keeping one while studying was the only way I could afford mine. I'm not sure why Garth's personal expenses are an issue here, but you brought it up.
You have incorrectly summarized my fascination with this rule. I am more partial to the malicious contact and "get it right" issues than I am with this. I teach a balk clinic every year and pride myself on the minutiae involved. The verbal obstruction matter is less of an issue for me than you suspect. I am not defending my position as much as trying to bring about change. If Carl can preach the expected call theory, why can't I argue contrary to what you feel the rules are? I would love to see the expected call proponents explain that philosophy to Hopkins. "Yes, I know what the rule says, but if the ball is there way before the runner, everyone expects that he'll be called out. Really, I don't even need to make the call, we should do it by applause."
I don't mind the solitude. I don't need to run with a pack in order to feel safe. Umpiring is not about making friends, it is about making the best judgement possible and communicating that call. I've been alone on the field many times after I made a tough call. At one time, Rosa Parks was the only person who said "No." to the masses. Being defiant isn't always a bad thing.
If you are really spending all of that time searching other boards, I suggest you come to my house next week for the college games. You can explain your newsletter hypothesis to the gang. We have about a dozen guys and a collective two hundred years of experience. Some of these guys work the Mizzou Valley, Gateway, MAC, Big Ten and Big East. A couple of state and American Legion championships and a host of Minor League action are also accounted for in this room. Oh, they paid for their pro school so they earned the right to dismiss bad mechanics and rule interpretations.
I've also read some of your posts and it seems you like to reiterate your beliefs quite a bit. You have an issue or two that serves as a core for your philosophy. Is that a glass house perhaps?
|