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!
|
I'm not certain why you found the urge to reiterate your points, I read and understood them. I used to end some of my posts with a Carl tribute - A2D (agree to disagree). The problem with that is that umpires are an opinionated lot. We don't like to have our judgement questioned - evidenced by countless "Do I go for help on this call?" threads. I addressed the name calling issue - when you get too stressed or run out of communication skills, out pop the dick/mom/heritage jokes. However, sarcasm is a highly sought skill in our world. If you can't handle a wry jab, then you should never don a mask.
Umpires are not a family any more than any other occupation. (Lawyers are the class example - sure we are in this together, but I'll cut your throat and sell my grandmother to make partner/win this case/get elected judge/etc.)We have commonalities and understand the nuances and intricacies of a well called game. However, it is very much an every man for himself world out there. Even amongst NCAA crews, it is fairly cut throat. You want to excel and get noticed while helping your crew mates. Come playoff time across the country, the jealousies emerge. Ego is an intrinsic part of umpiring and the best know they are good. Am I a bad partner for giving a brutally honest post game to a weak crew mate?
I undersatnd that you think we should all live in a pablum internet world. "I disagree with your ruling, but you're a swell guy." That is not the way life is at any endeavor. On a discussion board, you state your opinion and then await the verdict. Just like on the field, confrontation is part of the game. The board owner and mods recognize this and allow a certain amount to pervade the site.
Finally, like those who wanted to ban the Da Vinci Code, why are you afraid of words? The old adage of sticks and stones comes to mind. Maybe we don't see I to eye and can dialogue in a politically correct manner. However, if I am as adamnat in my belief as you are, expect some discourse. If your sarcasm offends me, then maybe I respond in kind. Remember, they are just words.