[BlueLawyer]

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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.

Sarcasm is a highly sought skill? I disagree. Most folks value a sense of humor, and sarcasm has a place in humor. When abused or overused, just like anything else, it becomes tedious, isolating and ultimately, ineffective.

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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.)

I disagree. What you see on David E. Kelley TV shows is not what being a lawyer is about. I don't act that way in the courtroom. If I told a judge to go f*ck himself (as I have seen on tv) the very best thing that would happen to me is I would be a couple grand lighter in the wallet and I would spend a couple of weeks in jail. I might get away with it two times; there would not be a third. There are jackasses in my profession, to be sure, and maybe more of them per capita (good Latin, eh?) than in other professions. My frame of reference on this is limited; I have been a lawyer, soldier, politician, sports official and a blue-collar factory guy in my life. By far the biggest number of self-important blowhards per capita is in the political field. But to the point about umpires:

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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.

I am interested to know where to draw the line in the name of "Me, Myself and I." If your partner boots a call, you know it and the aggreived Coach comes out and chews his a$$, do you leave your partner twisting in the wind? At the postgame do you say, "Man, you sucked on that one. But you made me look good. Thanks."? Do you pirate assignments? Do you run down your colleagues to coaches, other umpires, ADs and assignors? Maybe that attitude and execution works where you are from. Around here, it is a recipe for limited assignments.

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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?

It depends. I have bad games, even after years of experience. I expect my partner to tell me so. What I don't expect is for him to disrespect me and preen his feathers. I have sometimes felt like I have had to carry my partner when he is having a bad game. But you know what? I look bad, too. We look bad. It is no fun to work baseball when you as a crew are not having a good game.

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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.

You understand nothing about the way I think, because again, you didn't ask. And I am not stating that you should tell me I'm a swell guy. I am stating that telling me I'm an idiot is unnecessary. And is "confrontation is part of the game"? Really? It can be, but that is no reason to be confrontational. My experience tells me that if I go into a game looking for a fight, I'll find one. And this board is not a game. As much as some would like to, we can't ultimately eject anybody.

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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.

I am not afraid of words, WWTB. I am sometimes disgusted by them, much in the same way that I am not afraid of roadkill, but I find it unpleasant and disgusting. With all due respect, WWTB, what you and I have (and what I see with your "dialogue" with other members of this board) is not "discourse". It's you spoiling for a fight, looking for confrontation, asserting your superiority in every aspect of umpiring and turning every argument personal. That's not discourse; it's diatribe.

Strikes and outs!