[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Ranger
These two have different philosophies. This is not the end of the world. I have known many WWs in my career. They certainly have the "book" on their side. And I suppose for that style, the book is all the justification they need.

Ranger:

If your statement is true, then you are the better umpire for it. Notice what you are complaining about: WW calls the game by the rules of the game. That's wrong? Do you prefer umpires who make up rules as they go? We have a poster on this Board who sometimes says we should call the game by the rules the coaches make up. Surely you don't support that.

The statement that WW made that seems to be the foundation of his personality on this matter was: "It isn't our job to be judges of the seriousness of a specific offense." This statement by Warren reflects the style and personality of Warren Willson and does not reflect the opinion of most umpires I know. This is dangerous and a career threat and a style that will lower the ceiling that the umpire career can attain.

Your comment is certainly true of the average untrained, amateur umpire. What that arbiter wants to do is substitute his idea of morality for that contained in the book. Beyond tipping the scales slightly in favor of the offense, the OBR is rather balanced in its approach to "crimes." The only really heinous offenses are: throwing at a batter's head and interfering with a double play possible. Beyond that, I suggest that the OBR language proves that all offenses are equal: crime followed by punishment.

There are many tools that an experienced and imaginative umpire has in his bag. My bag contains many tools to be appropriate to all levels of poor conduct. These tools range from simple posture and facial expressions to the all out use of responses far more severe than ejections.

WW certainly wouldn't disagree with that. Nor would any veteran umpire.

I feel that if the coach or player is not complimenting my last questionable call, they are "OBJECTING" in at least a small way. Oh sure, sometimes it may initially appear to be a simple question. And sometimes it may appear as a simple hand gesture or evil look. Many times it starts with a small critical review of the pitch such as "That was a little high." And they will even try to cover up their comments by later claiming that they were actually only talking to their pitcher and not the umpire. I notice most of those things. I am offended by those things.

Truthfully, the above paragraph is the reason I picked your message to barge into the discussion. If someone isn't telling you how good you are, you assume they are telling you how bad you are!

Amazing!

Ranger: Never, never trust a coach or player, unless you have announced your retirement as soon as the game is over. There's always tomorrow. Gosh, coaches and players have more important things to think about that salving my ego, building my confidence, keeping me from being "offended."

I have been fortunate enough to be a college umpire and observe many pros first hand. Do not think for one moment that they eject for every objection. They like their jobs too much.

From the tone of that paragraph, it appears you've given up on the college level. I can understand that. The D1 guys don't give a damn about your (or my) sensibilities. Waiting around for the Miami coach to tell you how wonderful you are will certainly put wrinkles on your behind.

Use Solomon and not Atilla the Hun as an example of a role model umpire. History has been kinder to Solomon.

History is what man writes. Unfortunately, the Huns are no more, so we don't have anybody to stick up for Atilla. On balance, though, I'd say he probably had more influence on history than Solomon, who was, after all, merely a minor king of a minor kingdom.