Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, something is not right here. I've called mens leagues too long to know you're not going to have judgement calls go unquestioned (and uncommented upon).
---[snip]---
I can't believe your dumping someone simply because they are questioning a judgement call. Instead, I'll bet you accept it and just explain what you saw and why you called what you did---drawing the line at that point that there is nothing further to discuss. You've got to EXPECT comments on close plays--right or wrong with the call. Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone (or is it strikesone) will cause a warning to the coach that he needs to control himself or his team to avoid a LIKELY ejection for future infractions (note that using likely in the warning doesn't overcommit you).
UJNLESS IT IS FLAGRANT, I suspect few ejections occur without warning.
|
Ok. To quote Jackie Gleeson from Cannonball Run, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!"
You talk about "questioning a judgement call" and "comments on close plays". You suggest that "Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone" should bring a warning, etc. It may shock you but I AGREE! I have NOT been talking about minor "chirping". I have NOT been talking about questioning comments such as "Is
that the top of your zone, Blue?" or "Does it get any wider than that, Blue?" etc. I'm NOT even talking about minor beefing over a close call. Instead, I AM keying on the words ARGUING and OBJECTING to judgement calls. THAT is what I meant when I said that the only judgement to be exercised by the umpire is to decide whether or not he had a breach. In other words, to decide whether he had a harmless "chirp", or a flagrant OBJECTION! It is the latter that I suggest should be acted upon with despatch; no warning required.
I can certainly testify that a whole mess of minor "chirping" about calls, or mumbles and grumbles as I have called them, goes on all the time and is quite properly ignored. I might only act to warn the coach/manager if that got out of of hand for being too loud or lasting too long. OTOH, if I have an out-and-out OBJECTION to a judgement call, that guy is gone FIRST TIME. Period.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Sorry, Warren, your other posts throughout are too good for me to believe that you are practicing what you are preaching here. I think you are talking idealism rather than realism.
|
Bfair, if we can get the NOTION right between us such that what I
think I am saying and what you (and perhaps others) are actually
hearing (reading?) agrees, then what I am talking about isn't Idealism but is Pragmatism. I don't talk about "game management" so much as I refer to the words of OBR 9.01(a) and call it "maintaining discipline and order" on the playing field. You can't do that if you allow people to ARGUE with or OBJECT to your judgement calls. That is NOT to say you can't deal with a certain amount of mumbles and grumbles. OTOH, if the infringement threatens to disrupt the discipline and order on the playing field, it MUST be dealt with summarily. That's our job, according to OBR 9.01(a), NOT deciding if we are sufficiently offended to react.
Cheers.
[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 11:04 PM]