[His High Holiness]

Warren;

Wow, it's the pot calling the kettle black. At least you are consistent. I am regularly accused of jumping to conclusions by the big dog down under. Just for fun, let's look at all of the conclusions that you have jumped to that are incorrect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Nah! I wouldn't give Peter or his wacky ideas that level of credibility!

Peter always starts his epics with a plausible yet false premise.

ALWAYS!?. My, My, a big jump to conclusion even for you. Let's see, in the past I have concluded that most umpires are evaluated by the mechanics that the use, rather than the quality of their calls. Just try setting up behind the catcher rather than using the slot for calling balls and strikes and see what your NCAA or Minor League evaluator does to your rating. Yes, you might find one or two that will let it pass, but my "premise" is right-on for the vast majority.

One of my original "wacky ideas" was that umpires should strive for the avoidance of gross misses rather than trying to get their calls right. One approaches the game from a different point of view when his goal is to avoid obvious mistakes rather than a goal of getting it right.

I could go on and on but then I would have to write a Warren Willson length article.

In this case his flawed premise is that what people write on the Internet is somehow a true reflection of how they would actually perform in a game. If that were true, Freix would have called the plate in the last MLB All Star game!

What a giant leap to conclusion. Neither Freix nor I has even put forth the proposition that he does NCAA D1 ball much less MLB. On the contrary, I have said that an over emphasis on the rules might be an indication of a low level umpire. You and Freix over emphasize the rules to the exclusion of more important aspects of umpiring. I have never implied that good writing ability is indicative of umpiring capability. In your case, I might have added verbose writing ability.

I have a real life example of the fallacy Peter perpetrates with his assumption. A great but now deceased umpire friend of mine couldn't pass a written rules test to save his life. He became extremely nervous, and broke out in a cold sweat, any time someone put an exam paper in front of him. By Peter's reasoning he should have been equally nervous and poorly performed under pressure on the diamond. Needless to say he wasn't. In fact the reverse was true. He was unquestionably the best official we had at that time - ice cool in a crisis and able to rule correctly under the most intense pressure. He was also universally respected for his calm, almost effortless game control until the day he died in a mining accident.

Once again, false assumption. From my assigning days, I can tell you that approximately 10% of umpires are functionally illiterate. I have mentioned this in past writings. Many good umpires are incapable of taking a written exam of any kind because of reading at less than a 5th grade level.

Peter knows that I am angered and disgusted by officials who personally attack other officials while hiding behind the relative anonimity of the Internet. That is true whether or not they post under their own name, because most of us will never meet our fiercest Internet rivals in person. That should not be an excuse to abandon the ethic that you don't personally criticise a fellow official, especially in a public forum.

Once again, false assumption. You have assumed that I have have bought into some umpire ethical code. When has anyone known me to buy into conventional wisdom without question? On the contrary, I am disagreeable and consistently challenge the hypocritical wannabe big dogs who say one thing and do another. In this case, I am talking about a certain man down under, who loudly proclaims that "you don't personally criticize a fellow official" and then proceeds to criticize and insult. Would you like me to do a search of this forum, just like I did for Jim Porter when he made an equally ridiculous statement, to show you how much of a hypocrite that you are on this issue?

To draw the illogical conclusion that I would react in the same way on the diamond is just fantastic nonsense. The circumstances are entirely different. For one thing, when I am calling an actual game I almost never hear what is said outside the wire, regardless of who says it. I had developed an extraordinary level of elective deafness on the diamond long before I started calling NSW State League (AA-AAA Minors equivalent, at its best). If I hadn't then I certainly wouldn't have been selected for two Australian Championship series, or plated the championship final of the Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships).

Since I have never seen you umpire, I cannot say for certain that you are wrong, but based on my observations of hundreds of other umpires, there is a very strong possibility that you are delusional or lying. It is therefore not an "illogical conclusion" as you say, but a conclusion based on extensive observation. I elaborate in detail on this very point in my 11 part article. Thanks for another opportunity to plug my article which starts on August 12.

With regards to Internet umpiring, in the past I have said that those who have trouble controlling their emotions on the Internet would have trouble controlling them elsewhere. Notice that I did not say anything about writing style or illiteracy impacting your umpiring (which were two of your false conclusions above), only a lack of emotional self control.

I have seen numerous umpires loudly proclaim that what goes on outside the fence does not affect them. Then I watch their games and an entirely different reality emerges. They might not be lying, for lying assumes that one knows the real truth. They might truly believe their statements. In that case, they are only delusional. So which is it Warren, are you a liar or a candidate for the Jim Porter "reality" award? Does anyone believe Jim's statement that the Internet is the only place that he has these emotional problems? Is it an "illogical conclusion" (your words, Warren) to assume that Jim has emotional problems in several areas of his life, not just umpire boards.

Even if I did hear such abuse, I can assure Peter that I wouldn't react during the game. I've heard a darn sight more creative abuse from a lot closer quarters than that and never missed a beat! OTOH, I couldn't guarantee the offender's personal safety after the game. We Aussies have a long tradition of allowing men to settle their personal differences in the time-honoured fashion.

With all due respect, Warren, you are not the person that can evaluate whether or not you "missed a beat." The umpire is usually in the worst position to evaluate his own performance. Outside neutral raters are needed to determine the accuaracy of your statement. Good umpires, just like athletes of any kind, have outside mentors to evaluate and correct their shortcomings. We are often unable to see our own failings. But then again, this is one of the "wacky" ideas that I have put forward for years. In this case, it is backed up by all reputable psychologists in other areas, except the one down under. Maybe you could wrote an article on why umpires are different from other people and can self correct without any outside help.

With your last statement in the above quote, are you suggesting that umpires engage fans in a fight after the game to "settle" things?

Of course it wouldn't go that far, assuming Peter's entirely implausible example were ever to become reality. The very idea that Aussies, who pride themselves on their tradition of mateship, would sit idly by while two idiots with American accents standing out like a pair of bullock's nuts loudly and personally criticised any Australian official is just far too preposterous to imagine.

"Mateship" !!!!!! I don't even want to know what this means. It is rumored that you have an issue with sheep, but mateship is way to far out for me.

Peter