Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jicecone
In a recent thread, I used the phrase that I was the senior official in a game and basically stepped into a situation to resolve a dispute that had the potential of exploding. Exception was made with the fact that being the senior official on the field meant very little, “#2 It is my understanding that in most areas, the PU is the UIC, being the more senior as far as I know doesn't supersede anything.”
Today, I am reading the article “Ejection in the Cape Cod League” by Peter Osborne and noticed his statement, “However, as the senior umpire, I take a lot more initiative.”
Not exactly the same scenario however, I thought it may be a good topic of discussion.
Now, we have a good mix of young cocky stallions on this forum and some old geezer’s with a lot of experience and knowledge, often going head to head.
Maybe it is just me, but there seems to be a lot more individualism in officiating amateur sports now. Is it truly “every man for him self,” and should we prescribe to a “sink or swim” philosophy in our associations and let the younglings fend for their self?
In today’s competitive world what say you?
|
I think it is good to have an Umpire in Chief, or Crew Chief, one umpire to make a final decision on anything, some One who is responsible for how a game is generally managed. It matters not to me whether the *Chief" is the Senior, is behind the plate or is in the infield, but it seems more practical that the Chief is not in outfield for reasons of accessibility.
If some problem rears its ugly self during a given game, meet with the crew, come to a conclusion and live with the decision as a crew.
That said, for me, the Crew comes first, the crew follows and supports one another through the final out, the Chief included. If it is determined that it has become difficult, uncomfortable, or impossible to work with, or to communicate with, a member of a game crew, simply refuse to take any such assignments in the future.
This remains a game.