under armour

[GarthB]

Originally posted by senior


One doesn't need a scorebook to know the score, but most folks would find the scorekeeper more believable than some spectator without anything but his memory saying "it's 10-6 in favor of Smitty's".

Senior

So then, a small plastic object with three wheels is more believable than the person who operates it?

Amazing.

orginally posted by Carl


The bottom line is a very simple and inescapable truth: Having an indicator never caused any trouble and has saved much.

How many exceptions to the above make it no longer an inescapable truth? I have seen, on several occasions, umpires disagreeing over the count because the base ump's indicator did not match the scorebook or the scoreboard or the plate umpires's indicator. Each time the trouble caused was more than if the Base Ump said, "I don't know."

I gave up my indicator after watching a three man game in which after every pitch I could see three umpires, simultaneously, look at and adjust their indicators. Bush. I have seen umpires miss balks and pick-off throws while looking at their indicator.

And surpise of all surprises. Even my feeble mind can remember the count for one batter at a time. When the time comes I can't focus for the duration of a batter or an inning, I'll buy another indicator, or better yet, retire.

I don't have Carl's gift for rhetoric. I can't claim, as he does, that my experience is universal or that it leads to an "inescapable truth." It is just my experience and it is enough to convince me that I work better without an indicator in my hand or pocket.

If anyone feels the need for one, fine, use it in good health. But that's doesn't give anyone the right to make false accusations as to the reasons that others do not share their belief. When one attributes false purposes to another's actions, one is basically lying. Let's just live and let live, shall we?