The good ole days???????

[His High Holiness]

All;

There is a long recent thread here that discusses whether or not it is fair (sportsmanlike) to intentionally walk a kid in Little Leauge baseball. During the course of the thread, there are a lot of insults (excuse me, I mean good entertainment) thrown back and forth over the following issue:

Someone in the thread stated that he might bend the rules a bit depending on the situation and the league. His stated purpose for all the this was to make the game more fun (fair) for the kids. This idea is not new although it has been losing favor in recent years.

Thirty years ago when I umpired my first game, most of the big dogs operated this way. It's what made them big dogs. Their knowledge of when to bend the rules and when to change the rules cemented their hold on the top of the big dog pile. Little dogs not only had to learn the written rules, they had to learn all of the unwritten rules. This had the effect of extending the big dogs career and keeping the little dogs in their place.

The results were even more insidious (from an umpire career point of view) than one might guess. The big dog would bend a rule in a certain situation and the teams, coaches, etc. would say what a great job he was doing. The little dog would bend the exact same rule, in the exact same league, in the exact same situation, and all hell would break loose. It was because the big dog had the stature to alter a rule that the little dog did not have. Likewise, if the little dog enforced the rules as written, he was also a bad umpire. Little dogs were in a lose/lose situation.

Furthermore, these unwritten codes were (are) different in every league and every section of the country. A big dog was never mobile. If he tried to move to a new state, he started at the bottom of the little dog pile as he attempted to master the all the new nuances of the unwritten rules in his area.

This was a very good deal for big dogs. This was a very bad deal for up and coming wannabes.

At the NCAA level, Dave Yeast and company have been working mightily to end this policy. I have noticed a big change in the last five years. Now, it's the written rules and official interpretations that get a big dog ahead. Seven or eight years ago, it was tough to find a balk called at the NCAA level. If you did call one, you were labeled a high school umpire (read: little dog) and a s$$$house erupted. I called two yesterday at Georgetown University and no one said a word (at least that I could hear )

That's good news for wannabes and it keeps the big dogs from resting on their laurels. The little dogs are constantly nipping at their heals and this forces the big dogs to continually improve or be overtaken.

I have known more than few umpires who have quit the profession because of frustrations of dealing with the good ole boy network. The good ole boy network is a natural by-product of altering the rules to fit the situation.

The old way of doing business still exists in some states at the FED level. (and probably in some NCAA D2 and D3 conferences as well.) Within an hour of where I live, West Virginia has all kinds of obstacles put in place to keep their home grown big dogs on top.

For those advocating rules modifications by umpires, your position has a glorious past. It sometimes can even be good business. It is usually bad for the umpiring profession, however.

Peter

[Tim C]

you've written something other than that worthless drivel you get paid for over on the other side of this site.

Peter, you have called me a "Big Dog" but I am firmly in your corner on this confusing issue.

I started umpiring even before you. I have seen "Big Dogs" in many areas of the country. I followed right in with my own strike zone philosophy, not calling NCAA balks, and selecting often to igonore plain and simple rules.

"The system" not only allowed this, it encouraged it!

As an umpire we learned in the 60's, 70's and 80's that at upper levels (and that included the traditionally good high school teams) the game was controlled by the coaches. What coaches expected was, at times, far from the printed or even spirit of the rules.

Now I don't know how and when (or if) I actually became a "Big Dog". I know that at an early time in my career I got "big games" and usually worked with the veterans that ran the associations. Now trust me, it was a difficult task to learn what unwritten rules were used at what stop in the season. The real problem often reared when two "big time" coaches played each other and each expected something different.

I agree that certain umpires have always had the ability to use their presence to control any game and make any call they want. That not only comes from the rep of the umpire but sometimes it comes from the "presence" (no DeRock references, please) of the umpire.

(Remember, Cliff Gustafson said when he saw a new three man crew at UT he could tell from the instant the crew entered the field WHICH umpire he would have a problem with - pardon my syntax)

"A big dog was never mobile."

Finally something I can take issue with:

A true "big dog" is accepted wherever they go. It is the insidious little $hit known as the "wanna be big dog" that never leaves the nest. These are the guys that are hangers-on, that really can't work the "big game" but buy the best of gear, double shine their shoes, worry about the "Western Fold" in the crown of their cap, that hang in the watering hole after the meetings (invited or not) so they can look the part.

Peter I have been a member of nine associations. I have worked in the three continental Western states . . . I have been the member of five college groups and four FED groups . . . I have NEVER been accepted with anything but open arms (however there are STATES that protect their own horrible umpiring offspring - Wisconsin does not allow a transfer official to work FED state playoffs until they have lived in the state FOUR years, this assures that the horrible guys that have been working continue - now this is PROTECTING BIG DOGS).

"Big Dogs" (now Peter that is a true "Big Dog" not a "wanna be") will always know what will make them successful. If the NCAA wants balks called they will be, if the NCAA wants a larger strike zone it will be called, if (for some unknown reason) the NCAA wants to make base coaches stay in the coaches boxes (no that is not happening, I was looking for another rule we select not to call) we will do that also. There will always be "rules modifications" as you call them . . . they will just not be as obvious.

Being a true "Big Dog" is a difficult title to carry.

There is a time when any "Big Dog" slips . . . it is just how quickly they regain their feet.

I no longer consider myself a "Big Dog." As my age advances I take a more holistic view of umpiring. While I am still doing the job (hmmm, my formal evaluations say that although I am not as sure) I now that if I don't change the system will pass me by.

Liked this piece Peter . . . keep protecting the "Little Guy", you Commie Rat Ba$tard! :-)

Tee

DISCLAIMER:

I have always considered Peter a friend and that does not change with anything he writes.

T



[Edited by Tim C on Apr 30th, 2004 at 12:13 PM]

[GarthB]

About six years ago, Peter and I disagreed, somewhat pleasantly on this issue. Peter was the first internet umpire to advocate "pleasing the customer". My problem with that then, and even now, is: who is the customer?

I have always maintained that the customer is the one who pays for our services. In my experience 99% of the time that is a league, or association of teams, not the coaches directly involved in the games as Peter used to advocate.

Another issue that caused some friction at the time was that I read Peter's policy as a blanket policy that should be followed by all. In fact, Peter, at least on one occasion, argued that little dogs had to emulate the big dogs in this regard to get ahead.

I believe that one needs a good deal of game experience before he can handle a game as creatively as Peter advocates. I felt it was dangerous to tell a rookie to work in this manner.

Since we are all products of our experiences, we can easily have differeing opinions on this. My experience is not the same as Peter's. Even the biggest of Big Dogs that I have seen try to bend the rules for the event of the day usually get muzzled quickly. A few, who did not learn their lesson are no longer with us.

On the other hand, when a league has made clear its expectations, the successful Big Dogs find a way to incorporate those into their "game management".

Dave Yeast's efforts are not new. His view is not creative. NCAA is, I believe, sending the message as to how it, as an association, has always wanted the game called. They do, however, realize the pressure that some coaches have put on umpires in the past and that it will take some time to get umpires to respond to them instead of the local divas.

I agree with Tim. In most cases, except where assocations or states place unreasonable limitations on transferring officials, Big Dogs who move around, reamin Big Dogs. Wannabe Big Dogs are found out in a hurry. Performance ususally tells.



[Edited by GarthB on Apr 30th, 2004 at 12:17 PM]

[David B]

The last few years I've seen in our area a big changing of the guard in our HS ball.

NAIA and NCAA continues to be a troublesome issue since the guys in charge of those leagues are still back in the dark ages.

But we have had many of our "big dogs" quit umpiring and the change has been pretty good for the most part.

But I still hear stories from our home teams as they travel the state that so many of our state associations still are "business as usual."

That's the hard part. Heard part of a game today on radio and three man crew. Ball hit in gap in LF and BR misses first base supposedly.

U1 calls him safe but is over-ruled by PU. PU was the big dog umpire, but with three man that should not have been his call. (At least that's the way our association covers it.)

Regardless, it made a big problem with a big game. Might have been the right call but didn't sound like it was handled properly.

Now PU is "big dog" guy who schedules most all of the summer league tournaments. (And he's a good umpire)
I don't know who was at first, but I would have been ticked if that would have happened with me at first.

My point is that the "big dog" got away with it while the "little dog" would have been in trouble had he made the same call.

Thanks
David