Ejections

[chris s]

Fair enough, but I'd be tempted to wonder if the PU had actually "chosen to ignore" a remark, or simply didn't hear it in the first place. If someone makes a personal comment right in the guy's face, and he ignores it, fine. BUT, if the comment is from the dugout, the diamond or the coach's box then there's a distinct possibility that your partner didn't actually hear it. If that possibility exists AND you believe the comment crossed the line THEN you should be the one doing the ejecting regardless of who was the object of the insult. Agreed?

Cheers. [/B][/QUOTE]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
Well I agree. A little story, MSBL this past season.Partner is older guy, his hearing got screwed up in the Army so he wears 2 hearing aids.First game, visitors are getting wupped up on, 26-1 and skipper is getting real shitty. Luckily, we hit time limit and take break. Second game, skipper gets rung up by partner and starts to throw a tizzy. As skipper gets to dugout, he turns towards pard and calls him a motherfu*****, I am in "B" and run this guy immediately. I know pard did not hear, he shuts his hearing aids off when working the dish.
Here's another sit I would like an opinion on. I was working with a weak partner in a game he really should not have been assigned, I got bases. Pard is having zone problems, low end inconsistent, especially the breaking stuff.After a couple innings he's getting rode on pretty good, lotsa dugout comments but nothing personal,yet. Finally happens, batter argues after called third and as he walks away, turns to pard and sez "you f****** suck!" Pard thens starts to warn this dude! I yelled out, "no warnings, he's done, NOW!", then I got both skippers and asked if they understood the "warning" I just gave. The comments subsided and the batters just had to hack away at those low ones! This is what I consider "protecting your partner", especially when the bantering is screwing up "nervous newbie" even more.

[Ranger]

These posts are entertaining but way too argumentative. Talk about coach and player conduct! If BJ Moose has an opinion and Warren Willson wants to argue or object, that is one thing. But what I feel has happened is that WW wants to browbeat BJ into submission rather than simply express his point of view. So now I will offer a few observations of my own.

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. 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.

ALL OFFENSES ARE NOT EQUAL. They should not all attract the same response. 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.

Another basic problem here is how do WW and BJ each define the word "OBJECTING" to a decision? They have each drawn a line in the sand but have not been clear on what the standards are. Actually I will betray a personal weakness here. I am the most sensitive and easily offended person I know. But, that does not mean that my job as a sports official is compromised. 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.

Most all of my umpire friends think I am the toughest umpire they ever worked with. That is because I will notice the small things in the first inning of a game and confront the offenders in the first inning. In this way I set the behavior standard early without the escalation of hostility infecting the game in the late innings. I didn't eject, I instructed them on their behavior. I may even take the time to explain written rule book behavior standards. Now obviously if he 'F' Bombs me in the first inning he will be ejected without hesitation.

So getting back to the initial threads on this subject.

I know coaches and players very well. They are people too! Treat them with the same amount of respect that you expect from them.

No matter what your "objecting" standard is, recognize the different degrees or levels of offenses.

Develop a full range of **responses** (notice I did not say punishments)appropriate for each level of offense.

Accept that most comments are actually arguments if not objections. Both are prohibited by rule.

Never hide behind the written rule that allows ejections for small offenses. Always set the punishment to fit the crime. A court judge that gives the same punishment for 5 MPH over the limit speeding and first degree murder will get no respect and will rule chaos.

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.

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

[rex]

Concure "Cool hand luke" but I thought he was the Warden. The captain was the dude with the sun glasses.

rex

[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.

[BJ Moose]

...you play like a girl!

I feel much better now. WW is my bestest pal, and if I had enough beer, and could look him in the eye, I would, of course, convince him of the validity of my arguement.

..which by now, I don't really remember what it was, something about the Hands and the Bat?

[Ranger]

Actually I felt that the original posters on this topic Peter Booth and BJ Moose made some interesting points about how an umpire manages a game and the role of ejections. Warren Willson seemed to want them to eject whenever a coach or player objected.

My position is that even at the MLB level, objections and arguments are not always punished with ejections. Therefore, in baseball, just like life, all offenses don't carry the same punishment.

I never said that anyone should make up rules as they go. It is not the practice of MLB umpires to punish as though all offenses are equal. If a coach is chirping at me or any other umpire it usually is negative. I never said or suggested I wanted to hear any words, kind or otherwise, from coaches. Some may even choose to embrace the memory of Atilla closer that Solomon.

It seems that Solomon wasn't the interpreter for a big enough league to have value. Perhaps he should write another book. (Big Grin)

Here is an idea: If you don't use common sense when enforcing the rules, you'll do a poor job. To call baseball, or any sport, exactly by the book is to call a "perfect game," which causes trouble every time.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Ranger
Here is an idea: If you don't use common sense when enforcing the rules, you'll do a poor job. To call baseball, or any sport, exactly by the book is to call a "perfect game," which causes trouble every time.

In 1981 I gave my first speech to the annual Texas State Umpires Association. The title was: "How to Call a Perfect Game." As I stood outside the door, waiting for the crowd to enter, I saw Durwood Merrill, featured speaker for the banquet the next day, headed inside with his good friend, Odie Adams. "Psst, Odie," I hissed. "What's Durwood doing here?" "Hell, Carl, he read the title of your speech and said, 'By God, I want to meet the sumbitch who can do that.'"

Durwood hadn't heard the subtitle to my talk, which was: "How to Call a Perfect Game, or Why I Got Scratched in San Benito."

I made my national reputation as an advocate for common sense umpiring. Warren's suggestions are the epitome of common sense, at least at the higher levels he calls. What works when AAA-1 Bail Bonds plays Wilkenson Chiropractic (Mustang league in my town) won't always get it done when the Melbourne Koalas play the Sydney 'Roos.

[GarthB]

Ranger wrote:

"These posts are entertaining but way too argumentative. Talk about coach and player conduct! If BJ Moose has an opinion and Warren Willson wants to argue or object, that is one thing. But what I feel has happened is that WW wants to browbeat BJ into submission rather than simply express his point of view."

It's unfortunate you choose to view it as such. However,I do understand the relationship between one's perception and one's reality.

I think Warren has done an admirable job of attempting to explain his position while remaining civil. (It wasn't he who had his message deleted for unfairly and rudely attacking a poster).

He also mixed in some "inside" material that he and Moose both understand due to their relationship. It would be a mistake for those of us outside that relationship to pass judgement on it.

We need to remember two things about Warren: First, the level of ball he often calls in Australia is equivelent to our AAA minors or better.

Secondly, Australia is, at times, even more faithful to the OBR and the NAPBL than the US.

Neither of these factors, by themselves, make Warren a superior umpire, or even correct. They do, however, suggest we should consider his opinions openly and with an understanding of "where he is coming from" before dismissing them.


BTW Ranger, RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!
...when were you at Fort Benning? Perhaps our paths have crossed or we have similar acquaintances. I have found parts of the creed to be applicable in umpiring:
"Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight onto the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor."


GarthB



[Edited by GarthB on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 09:56 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ranger
These posts are entertaining but way too argumentative. Talk about coach and player conduct! If BJ Moose has an opinion and Warren Willson wants to argue or object, that is one thing. But what I feel has happened is that WW wants to browbeat BJ into submission rather than simply express his point of view.

Ranger, please. I have already pleaded that people should NOT read motives into posts that don't exist, whether they be my posts or anyone elses. I am NOT trying to "browbeat BJ into submission"! Heck, I've "known" Mike long enough through boards such as this to know that approach simply wouldn't succeed. If I state and then restate my case in different terms it is ONLY because I have no other way of trying to make my position understood across the vast gap that exists between our two entirely different social sources of reference. We don't even speak the same LANGUAGE, most of the time, although I do try to put things into the American idiom when I am sure what that would be in the circumstances. You are reading something into my posts that I can assure you simply isn't there. How about cutting me some slack on this, eh?

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. 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.

See, now there you go again! You have apparently settled in your mind that I am a rule book thumping harda$$ who umpires with a style you characterise as "dangerous and a career threat". Ranger, aside from what you READ in my posts you have NO IDEA what my umpiring style is. You have put your sense of comprehension up against my words and come up with a lemon! That's simply not a fair way to assess umpires or their styles! You haven't even queried a single statement in order to gain a better understanding. I think you are probably quite content that you KNOW who and what I am, even if in reality you don't. I can tell you now, Ranger, you haven't really known ANY WW's - least of all THIS ONE.

Originally posted by Ranger
ALL OFFENSES ARE NOT EQUAL. They should not all attract the same response. 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.

As Carl correctly guessed, I quite agree with you on this in principle. When did I suggest otherwise?

Originally posted by Ranger
Another basic problem here is how do WW and BJ each define the word "OBJECTING" to a decision? They have each drawn a line in the sand but have not been clear on what the standards are. Actually I will betray a personal weakness here. I am the most sensitive and easily offended person I know. But, that does not mean that my job as a sports official is compromised. 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.

Most all of my umpire friends think I am the toughest umpire they ever worked with. That is because I will notice the small things in the first inning of a game and confront the offenders in the first inning. In this way I set the behavior standard early without the escalation of hostility infecting the game in the late innings. I didn't eject, I instructed them on their behavior. I may even take the time to explain written rule book behavior standards. Now obviously if he 'F' Bombs me in the first inning he will be ejected without hesitation.

Ranger, here is where you are using YOUR social source of reference to impute a meaning for words spoken from MY social source of reference. If you had read ALL of my posts in this thread you would have understood what I mean by OBJECTING in the context of an ejection offense. I said this did NOT include minor "chirping", questioning of calls such as "Is that as wide as it gets, Blue?" or even minor beefs over close judgement calls. Instead I said that by OBJECTING I mean a CLEAR and obvious breach of the rules against objecting to a judgement call. I even gave an example of such a "clear and obvious" breach; "That guy was SAFE. You made a sh!# of a call, Blue!" This is both illegal and personal, and earns an early shower from me every time. If you disagree, Ranger, no problem. Just don't draw any uneducated and ill-informed conclusions about my abilities and proclivities as an umpire from a few simple posts on an umpire discussion board!

Originally posted by Ranger
So getting back to the initial threads on this subject.

I know coaches and players very well. They are people too! Treat them with the same amount of respect that you expect from them.

No matter what your "objecting" standard is, recognize the different degrees or levels of offenses.

Develop a full range of **responses** (notice I did not say punishments)appropriate for each level of offense.

Accept that most comments are actually arguments if not objections. Both are prohibited by rule.

Never hide behind the written rule that allows ejections for small offenses. Always set the punishment to fit the crime. A court judge that gives the same punishment for 5 MPH over the limit speeding and first degree murder will get no respect and will rule chaos.

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.

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

Ranger, no-one is going to take kindly to being compared with Atilla the Hun, however obliquely! While not claiming to BE a "role model", I have tried to encourage the readers to realise that as umpires they do NOT decide the penalties for offenses under the rules when the rules already include a penalty provision. In that regard, umpires are much closer to policemen than judges. That does NOT mean they can't exercise some degree of judgement about whether an offense has actually been committed or not. I have already acknowledged that several times in this thread. Your advice to treat players and coaches with the same respect you yourself would require is very GOOD advice. Why didn't you take it yourself when reading my posts and imputing their motives?

Cheers.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ranger
Actually I felt that the original posters on this topic Peter Booth and BJ Moose made some interesting points about how an umpire manages a game and the role of ejections. Warren Willson seemed to want them to eject whenever a coach or player objected.

It depends what YOU mean by "objected", Ranger. If you mean minor "chirps", mumbles and grumbles, little beefs about close calls, etc., then the answer is NO, I DO NOT want them to eject whenever a coach or player "objected".

Originally posted by Ranger
My position is that even at the MLB level, objections and arguments are not always punished with ejections. Therefore, in baseball, just like life, all offenses don't carry the same punishment.

Using YOUR definition of "arguments" and "objections" I agree completely. OTOH, if we were using MY definition, I can guarantee that in the professional leagues, excluding the "show" because it is such a significantly different culture, such offenses ARE met with ejections IF that is the prescribed punishment. All offenses may NOT "carry the same punishment", but the SAME offense should always be punished in exactly the same way! To do otherwise would be patently unjust.

Originally posted by Ranger
I never said that anyone should make up rules as they go. It is not the practice of MLB umpires to punish as though all offenses are equal. If a coach is chirping at me or any other umpire it usually is negative. I never said or suggested I wanted to hear any words, kind or otherwise, from coaches. Some may even choose to embrace the memory of Atilla closer that Solomon.

Whatever the "practice of MLB umpires" may be, I don't believe it is particularly relevent to this discussion. MLB umpires are participants in a "show", and may well have different constraints on their actions from amateur and minor league officials. Using them as examples is frought with pitfalls. Nevertheless, the rules we operate under are THEIR rules, and we should be cogniscent of THEIR interpretations of those rules. The fact remains that if we choose to play the game according to their rules, then we should apply the penalties as they are written in those rules. Umpires who try to divine the intent of players and coaches who clearly breach those rules, in an attempt to justify NOT applying the specified penalties, have overstepped the bounds of their role by a HUGE margin. When God declared "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Vengeance is mine" he was letting everyone know that HE made the rules and it was up to HIM to decide the penalties. I say the same applies to the rules of baseball. No umpire should usurp that right. Even Solomon would agree with that! (even BIGGER grin)

Originally posted by Ranger
Here is an idea: If you don't use common sense when enforcing the rules, you'll do a poor job. To call baseball, or any sport, exactly by the book is to call a "perfect game," which causes trouble every time.

Absolutely. Now, can you please show me where I have ever advocated a different approach?

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 04:14 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
...you play like a girl!

I feel much better now. WW is my bestest pal, and if I had enough beer, and could look him in the eye, I would, of course, convince him of the validity of my arguement.

..which by now, I don't really remember what it was, something about the Hands and the Bat?

"... you play like a girl!" Ah, the Sandlot Kids. I loved that movie! It had more pure baseball, frame for frame, than "The Natural" and "Bull Durham" put together (and I liked those movies, too - grin).

Moose, if I could look YOU in the eye, and the beer was on YOU, I would tell you that anything you say is just fine with me, mate! (BIG grin)

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 05:08 PM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson


2. If, however, the player, manager, coach or substitute argues from wherever he is at the time then any opportunity to warn has passed, the offense has already been committed and so should be immediately punished. NO WARNING IS REQUIRED!

NO WARNING is EVER required when the argument is over SAFE/OUT, FAIR/FOUL or any other judgement decision except BALL/STRIKE. If I can prevent the offense by warning, I will. If the offense has already been committed, it's too late and the offender is done! Remember my social source of reference though. I do Adult leagues with players up to A-AA standard. I don't do LL equivalent very often, and I might be tempted to temper my approach at that level, but NOT for HS JV or Varsity and certainly NOT for College. Those guys ought to know better already!

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 06:03 PM] [/B]

Warren, this is from the first of your 16 posts regarding this subject (grin). I am very pleased to see your attitude IS NOT as this first post APPEARED to be. I suspect upon review it sounded pretty hard-nosed.

Obviously you've stated hence that what you were trying to emphasize was that there is no requirement to issue an warning. I think most umps are aware of that point.

It also seems apparent to me that you are a higher level official. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE was that I have seen many higher level officials who say one thing----in accordance with THE RULES!!----- and then practice another on the field.

Your original attitude SEEMED to be one that could be supported by the rules, but in reality would not allow you to survive long on the field---not with the many comments made by men. Your follow up posts seem to indicate you're just a wonderful marshmallow at heart and probably get invited to all the pajama parties held by the players. (grinz)

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair

Warren, this is from the first of your 16 posts regarding this subject (grin). I am very pleased to see your attitude IS NOT as this first post APPEARED to be. I suspect upon review it sounded pretty hard-nosed.

Obviously you've stated hence that what you were trying to emphasize was that there is no requirement to issue an warning. I think most umps are aware of that point.

It also seems apparent to me that you are a higher level official. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE was that I have seen many higher level officials who say one thing----in accordance with THE RULES!!----- and then practice another on the field.

Your original attitude SEEMED to be one that could be supported by the rules, but in reality would not allow you to survive long on the field---not with the many comments made by men. Your follow up posts seem to indicate you're just a wonderful marshmallow at heart and probably get invited to all the pajama parties held by the players. (grinz)

In this imperfect medium it is EASILY possible to impute an "attitude" to a poster where either none existed or the actual "attitude" was quite different. I have been posting on the Internet for a long time. I was posting in the early days of r.s.o and McGriff's and learned very early on that, despite the emoticons and other devices, people's words frequently fail to convey their true meaning.

I am no "marshmallow", but I am also no "harda$$" either. I have been called a "true gentleman" by players from my District League, and I have been called some other less than complimentary names, too. I have survived long enough on the field to call for many years at District League level (A-AA minors equivalent) and State League level (AA minors equivalent, on average), attend 11 Regional championships (including 10 finals appearances and 4 final plates), and 2 Australian Championships (including the championship final plate in the 1998 Commonwealth Cup - the Australian Senior Provincial Championship). I'm not bragging, understand. There are many umpires I know and respect who have done much, MUCH more. I'm simply suggesting that you can't do all the things I've done if you are a black/white, by-the-book, harda$$ official.

The other thing I have NEVER done is to believe that I KNOW all there is to know about the rules or their intent. That is partly what keeps me applying the penalties for rule breaches strictly as written, instead of making my own judgments about player or coach intent, motives, etc. I can legitimately use these cues to decide whether or not a breach has been committed. Once that is decided, however, enforcing the penalty is NOT optional, IMHO. I have ALWAYS practiced what I preach, both on and off the diamond. It's just that sometimes I have trouble helping people from other countries understand exactly what it is that I'm preaching! (grin)

In my recent series of articles for eUmpire.com on "Umpire Ethics", I am at great pains to point out that umpires have two (2) major responsibilities on the diamond:

1. Conduct of the game (in accordance with the rules)
2. Maintaining discipline and order on the playing field

In trying to explain how to maintain an ethical balance between those two often competing responsibilities, I have made it clear that there are times when strictly enforcing the rules is clearly the WRONG thing to do. I think that position betrays that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a harda$$ about going by the book. Certainly where the book has a specific penalty for a clear and undeniable breach of a rule, I believe that penalty ought to be applied as required. That is NOT to say that there aren't times when the maintenance of discipline and order might be better served by doing otherwise. The point is that umpires are powerful enough under the rules, without needing to play God in deciding if a penalty should or should not be applied depending on how they feel about the offense, or the offender, at the time.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 05:39 PM]

[Ranger]

The long and meticulous written defenses of slights perceived from my posts only detract from my original idea that caused me to want to post in the first place. After all, I was not the one that said, "It is not our job to be judges of the seriousness of a spcefic offense." I thought that BJ Moose had some ideas that were harshly received. I wanted to weigh in with those 7 points that I have taught in the past in some of my clinics. Not one of those 7 points had anything whatever to do with offending anyone.

I will not play the point by point rebuttal game. It has gotten so far off the subject of game management. I am interested in game management. If anybody wants to educate me any further about how different things are in foreign countries they can email me.

Interesting how the reference to Atilla the Hun was focused on. This was only one of 7 points I made asking umpires to try to be wise like Solomon. I don't see why any offense should be taken by this advice or any of the other 6 points I made. I assure you this was not about Atilla but about Solomon! This most certainly was not an oblique comparison, whatever that means.

Now, how about ejections and game management?

[Edited by Ranger on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 10:18 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Ranger

I will not play the point by point rebuttal game. It has gotten so far off the subject of game management.

Let's stay off subject for a moment. Your "nickname" is military, harkening to that most elite of all US Army units. But in your very first posts, you echoed Marine Corps attitudes and terms. The Rangers I know would, shall we say, eschew references to the "wimps" at Semper Fi.

Also, your credibility would be greatly improved if we knew something about you: Your history of officiating, of posting in other forums (even if under different names); where you currently ply your trade, whether you still call NCAA-level games. Etc.

People like Warren and me run great risks when we post to the 'Net: We are who we are. For example, anyone interested can find my phone or FAX numbers. Anyone interested in "ranger" can....

Lah me, the anonymity of the non-registered "registered" Forum member. Ain't it grand?