|
Bob,
You are one of the only people I actually enjoy seeing post here. I know you didn't intend to extend the conversation and that is fine by me. It seems that the same few people respond and they have neither the experience nor verbal acuity to handle these verbal sparring sessions. I rather enjoy Garth and TAC chiming in, but they often let this get personal and that is a shame. Bob Lyle is not worth words.
When I said that I made my point it was simple. It is preposterous to think that an infielder is within his rights to tell a runner to run, but cannot tell him to go back to the base. Therein lies the conundrum; I have to explain it in simple terms because there are those members who see my name and shake with contempt. They don't care if I say the sky is blue and God is good. The world has encountered these beings before and Darwin has shown that they usually eliminate themselves before much harm is done to the gene pool. Too often they are so obsessed with proving me wrong that they fail to see that I may be agreeing with their view. They view my tone as condescending, but embrace Carl's diatribe as mother's milk. I find that utterly (yes, pun intended) hysterical.
There are a few umpires here that I respect. Sal, JJ, HHH, Bob Jenkins and a couple of Illinois boys that I won't mention because they'll think I'm kissing up. I actually am kind of fond of J.Rutledge because he wears his heart on his sleeve. I may disagree with some of his sentiments, but I respect the fact that he is usually sincere. I didn't notice any of those mentioned agreeing or disagreeing with the interpretations I have proposed. They are around to be certain; we've seen their names pop up every so often. Why is it that none of them have taken a stand against what I proposed? Maybe it's because we call it the same way. I have had my share of scuffles with a couple of them. They are not too shy to disagree. Hmmmm...
The only thing I can say to BigUmp56, is that you are guilty of the thing you accuse me of doing. You posted about verbal obstruction a few months ago on another board. It was ugly, as a few people took it beyond the realm of civility. You then posted it here and received a handful of responses. A little while later, you went back to the other site and did it again. I don't believe for a second that you are currently not participating in that madness over there. You can deny it all you want, but few people write like you and that is not a compliment. There, that wasn't too condescending, it was very direct. If you failed to appreciate the irony in the plays I suggested, that is not surprising either. Calling Verbal Obstruction is reserved for very serious infractions. I don't rely on decade old newsletters to support them. Do you even have a copy of that newsletter, BigUmp56? No, you weren't even umpiring high school ball back then. But enough already, you'll never appreciate the message.
In the end, we all have to make the calls we can live with. I have not personally encountered one official that would call the Verbal Obstruction as discussed here. I run with a pretty talented group of officials (multiple sports) and none think that this is a sensible rule. Most are glad that they don't umpire high school baseball. The others are glad that Illinois expects the officials to only enforce rules forund in the Rule and Case Books. So, call it however you want. I'm pretty certain that the coaches know what to expect when the see you in the parking lot. Mine know that I will hustle, call them according to the book and work together with my crew to get them all right. I keep getting asked back, so I must be doing something right.
As Garth said, good luck next season. It'll be here before you know it.
|