Thread: Civility
View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 26, 2006, 09:12pm
BigUmp56 BigUmp56 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Bend, In.
Posts: 2,192
Send a message via AIM to BigUmp56 Send a message via Yahoo to BigUmp56
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueLawyer
WWTB: here are my points. Again.

1. I can disagree with you without being disagreeable. I can disagree with your call without thinking you suck as an umpire or as a human being. I can disagree with your internet post, and say so, without engaging in character assassination. I can disagree with you without calling you names, questioning your ancestary or in general telling you that you are the biggest idiot ever to don a mask.

2. We (officials) are all in this together, to some degree, greater or lesser. My fellow blues are my competition, true. But before that they are my colleagues and my teammates. If they succeed, to some extent, I succeed. If this wasn't true, I'd throw my partner under the bus every time he booted a call and say something to the effect of "You're right, coach. He really does suck. I can't believe he's working this level of ball either."

If you don't think this is family, I have genuine sorrow for you.

Criticism is indeed the path to better officiating, and therefore, ultimately, better competition. Criticism should be constructive to acheive its intended goal, however. "Zega, you should have been deeper at C to see the play better. Here's where you need to be," works much better than, "Zega, you suck. That's something I would expect from a University of Arkansas grad. Quit umpiring now and save us all the embarassment of you being on the field. I hope you law better than you ump, or you're going to starve."

"I'm in it for me. Only me. Period." That attitude will lead to an awfully lonely and unfulfilling career. IMHO.

Strikes and outs!

The problem here is that we have a few individuals that will not accept any form of criticism, however constructive, without responding with personal attacks. We have an individual here who tried to explain to us why he felt it was appropriate to throw his partner under the bus on a non balk call. He rambled on and on about how bad his partner kicked it by not calling an obvious balk. When we pointed out to him that all balk calls are a shared responsibility he responded with all sorts of insults. As the thread went on we all found out that the real fact was he had nary a clue as to how to call a balk himself. Still, he persisted in whining like a school girl that we were picking on him instead of sucking it up and learning from other more experienced officials. I could go into detail about how this child believes in make up calls and had little insight into the nuances of the rules, but by now I hope you get the point. There has not been one single individual who has pointed out his errors that wasn't atacked personally.


Tim.