It must have been one hell of a discussion.

[rex]

I have picked up rumors and underlying statements off this board and eteam plus some e-mail. There have even been a couple of comments made on some of the mail lists I belong to. I perceive there has been heated debate about a subject or subjects in the chosen group that is geared to change OUR outlook on this game that we officiate.

The Conspiracy theory.

Recently members of the group have made several posts both here and on eteam that are somewhat against the grain. Yet all (club members) defend the posts with a single voice. As if it where an ant colony with a singular mind.

When the some of unwashed, unclean and untutored have rebelled against these far out IDEAS some of the more out spoken ring leaders have been verbally cut down to size.

The ideas have merit; it’s just that this longhaired country boy isn’t wild about the format of presentation.

I’ll bring up just one of the ideas. “It’s not a balk if the pitcher steps off the rubber with the wrong foot.” I do not condemn or condone this notion. I do condemn the way it’s being pushed in our faces.

Over on eteam this subject was cussed and discussed on several threads. The strange thing was that the masses fought it tooth and nail while the COOL CREW thought it to be the ultimate way to think.

Then on Wed. we get a post here “as to how to be a kinder and gentler nation. (AKA when the Pope dies I’m next in line). I think the cup of grass came on Thur. When I read my end of the week installment of eUmpire. By God there it was again same song different vocalist.

So now I put it together. Those who have Pro training are grumbling. There are more FORMER members of the in crowd coming out of the woodwork. Posts concerning rules set forth by the ULIMATE TEAM must be defended at all cost no dissension, one for all and all for (what ever).

Now I just wonder what all the fuss could have been about. An off the wall theory or how do we dupe the masses?


rex

[Edited by rex on Jan 6th, 2001 at 04:21 AM]

[Bfair]

The thought was best put in a post by Mr. Moose highlighting that the emperor may be wearing new clothing. At least it seems that way much of the time.

It is important to note that the group implied is very knowledgeable and should be of excellent benefit to all. With that added knowledge, we can then make up our own minds.

There are factors about how we do our job that are not listed in the rulebook. You won't find them no matter how hard you look. They are attempting to highlight some of those factors to aid you in you progression. Acknowledging the existence and outwardly addressing these factors is training that won't be offered by every association.

Just an opinion,

[Rich]

I don't come out of the woodwork often, choosing to spend what little time I have writing my articles for eUmpire.com, helping to run a little listserv called UmpiresTalk, and participating in one of my former associations' listservs. But please, lend me your ears for a moment.

----------------------
Cool crew?

Emperor?

It is truly amazing to me how people use such blatantly transparent euphemisms in an effort to try to knock a group of people and their ideas and efforts.

I am a co-owner of this list I believe Rex calls "the cool crew". I am a friend of the person the Moose calls "the emperor."

And, yet, I publicly, privately, and to anyone who cares to listen vehemently disagreed and continue to disagree with the "consensus" opinion on the balk thread held now on a handful of boards and listservs.

Over on a private list I co-own with the emperor, we have, since Thursday, argued and fought back and forth over this posted play. 141 meesages have been posted on this particular play since late Wednesday. There has been no consensus, and I think we've reached the A2D stage. Blood, as always, was spilled, but mostly contained within our community. As always, anyone was free to posted dissenting opinions anywhere he wanted to.

Those who have complained either here or elsewhere have a personal axe to grind OR at one time failed to meet the required level of decorum on our private mailing list. And say what you want about that -- when people decide to run a private mailing list or run a message board on a website, the rules of engagement and the guidelines for membership are exactly what the owners decide they will be. Period.

So all of you confused (or amused) readers out there: Ignore this petty whining going on by people who have other motives for trying to gain your support.

One thing is clear to anyone who takes the time to bother to think: Those of us who post under the flag of UmpireTalk or eUmpire.com (My opinion here is mine alone and does not necessarily represent those at UmpiresTalk or eUmpire.com) DO take this game and the study of rules, mechanics, interpretations, and the intent and custom of it all very seriously. Nothing that we post is ever posted without our doing research on the rule or interpretation in question.

ObBaseball: I still think that anytime a pitcher steps off, while in the windup position, with his non-pivot foot, a balk shall be called. OBR 8.01 (a3) and NAPBL 6.4(h) leave little wiggle room for disagreement. I've argued this until blue in the face. And yet, I respect Warren, Carl, Jim Porter, and all the others who have tried to convince me otherwise.

Rich Fronheiser,
Natick, MA

[Jim Porter]

Rex,

If you are at all referring to my most recent article about The Art of Umpiring, I will take this opportunity to respond.

I have had absoltutely no correspondence, either privately or publically, with Carl Childress or Warren Willson regarding this subject matter. I read all the posts regarding this topic, and drew my own, independent, opinion.

I am just as entitled as you are to voice my opinion. Furthermore, I bear a responsibility to the eUmpire.com community to bring forth professionalism, accuracy, and excellence in my articles. I have delivered to our readership a piece that encompasses a far wider scope than simply a single scenario response. Since you have read the article, I'm sure you must recognize this.

It is my opinion that young, rather inexperienced umpires seem to be bringing to our vocation a hasty and often heavy-handed angle of pursuit regarding the black and white letter of the rules. It is my further opinion that discretion and common sense seem to be playing less of a role in umpire judgment on the field. I personally find this destructive. I will strongly voice my opinion every time topics of such a vital nature are concerned.

Thank you for your thoughts. I look forward to bringing you, as a subscriber of eUmpire.com, the most informative and truthful articles that I can possibly deliver.

[Rich]

I truly hate this UBB method of quoting. No big deal, I'll just play cut-and-paste like I do on Usenet.

Dave says ----> Rich goes on to say that the issue has been debated, with blood spilled, privately (presumably on UT) and in a great volume of posts, but the fact that there is only one single expression of disagreement with the party line by a UT member on a public discussion forum seems to reinforce Rex's point that it is indeed a party line, and if there are dissenters, they're awfully quiet in public.

Rich ----> Members of RightSports will read my 1000 word dissent with Carl, Jim, and Warren this week. I submitted it yesterday.

Let me simply reply with what I've already told others, perhaps not in public. My Internet time is limited - I've been traveling quite a bit in doing my day job. I choose to spend some of it writing my articles for RightSports and the rest of it writing messages within UmpireTalk. Not because I don't want to talk with people like Rex or the people on other message boards. Au contraire - I am on another listserv where Rex and Moose and I talk occasionally, and we all get along just fine.

MY blood doesn't get spilled on the messge boards for another reason:

I don't like bulletin boards in general. And truthfully, it is because I like knowing the identity and the background and the personality of the people sending messages in threads, which is why I prefer the private email community format much better.

As to your comments about putting off the customers: well, I can't really speak to that. I only speak for myself, and I'm certainly not going to change my ways because someone doesn't like when I disagree a little too strongly.

You know, coaches sometimes pay my game fees on the field, but I don't let THEM walk all over me, either.

Rich

[senior]

Gentlemen:
My sentiments exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself, and thank heavens, didn't have to, thanks to you guys.
I hope the gentle "nudges in the ribs" are taken well, and without the offense, which just isn't there in your realistic posts.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
But your (the collective you) seriousness and dedication to thorough research sometimes backfires, when it is used to justify a shrill, ultra-sensitive to disagreement, give no quarter, condescending tone with anyone and everyone who dares to question or challenge one of your serious, thoroughly researched pronouncements. More than anything, that is what has happened over at eteamz the last few days, with Warren finding himself in the center of a storm of controversy on a number (I've lost count) of different issues.

Your perceptions are NOT necessarily accurate either! This whole mess started because someone who is NOT a member of UT posted an excerpt from Carl's new book 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game which was read at eUmpire.com. I started the controversy, WITHOUT any prompting from Carl, or UT or anyone else, by saying I agreed with Carl's position and why. In fact I know Carl and almost everyone else, either within UT or outside, disagrees with my contention that the subject action isn't even a balk! Go figure the party line in THAT!

Now you characterise the posts as "shrill, ultra-sensitive to disagreement, give no quarter, condescending tone with anyone and everyone who dares to question or challenge"? Dave, that is how YOU have perceived those posts. Heck, it may even be how 99.99% of readers perceived those posts. It was NOT the tone, tenor or spirit in which they were written. The problem is I communicate in Australian English. You all read in American English. That leads to lots of miscomprehension and misinterpretation which I usually address at length - probably at too much length. I don't like being misunderstood. It frustrates me beyond belief.

I can solve the problem, at least for me. I am no longer going to post to eTeamz, OfficialsForum or McGriff's. I am resigning my membership of UT, and I am resigning my position as a freelance contributor to eUmpire.com forthwith. Frankly, I give up. I give up trying to deal in a gentlemanly fashion with all the politics, personalities and passions here. It is just too taxing. I'm way too tired of the name-calling, the inuendo, the nastiness and the whole idea that people can READ things like "shrill" and "ultra-sensitive" and "condescending" in a post that is PLAIN TEXT and bugger all else! (you may read both anger and frustration in that last sentence with my approval).

There is little point in continuing, since the consensus of opinion both here and elsewhere is that most people don't listen much to anything I have to say anyway, or if they do they lend it little credibility. After all, I'm just an Australian; what would I know about baseball? Well done, Dave. I'm sure this reaction will convince you that you are right in every detail of your analysis. Pity.

Cheers.

[rex]

OPPS! That's the closest you'll get to-I didn"t mean for this to happen.
(please note the Icon and if you've ever noticed I don't never use them)
rex

[Bfair]

Warren----you are not a quitter. Don't disappoint the others and me who frequent this and other boards. Trust my sincerity when I say I think you are well respected and a major asset to his method of communication and learning.

As said previously, people are here to learn. I want to hear what Warren has to say. learn from it, yet respect it if I disagree with it. But what I really want to hear is what Warren thinks and believes-----not the phraseology of how Warren can present a view that if reflective of a "team" philosophy and worded to asssure it is not upsetting others on his team.

Warren, while umpiring I am sure you had the days when it seemed everyone jumped on your zone. It didn't necessarily mean your zone was bad or you should quit umpiring. It probably caused you to do a little self re-evaluation though. Warren, have you heard the crowd complainin' about the zone? Go talk about it with your partners. Reconfirm. Maybe your partners need to re-look at their zones too. Then make your decisions.

I think you enjoy the learning and the method and hope you will stay. Additionally, should you elect to leave, we would all suspect (and hope) you will return with a pseudonym. I want to see you here.

BTW, if you elect to use a pseudonym-----watch out where you put the "z" and "s"------could be a dead giveaway! (grin)

[Edited by Bfair on Jan 8th, 2001 at 11:25 AM]

[GarthB]

Steve writes:

"But what I really want to hear is what Warren thinks and believes-----not the phraseology of how Warren can present a view that if reflective of a "team" philosophy and worded to asssure it is not upsetting others on his team."

It is indeed disappointing that to some, membership in an organization strips one of his right to be considered an individual. There is no team, that I know of, to which Warren or I belong.

We belong to UT, an internet list of umpires with a variety of backgrounds and experiences who enjoy the study of baseball rules, mechanics and game control. Some UT members are D1 NCAA umpires, some are FED umpires, some are LL umpires and some are retired umpires. Some have had pro experience and several have gone to pro school. Several of us are trainers and/or assignors.

We are not bound together by any single ideology. We are a group as diverse in our approach to rules study as we are in our experiences.

All of us are capable of independent thought and express that on a regular basis. We do not have a policy to not disagree withone another. We do have a policy to not be disagreeable with one another. While some umpires may not understand, there is a difference.

And that is what attracted many of us to this board. Management stated from the start that they would not tolerate personal attacks and disagreeable conduct on this board. They have kept good their word. One poster has had his posts removed at least twice and has been warned to cease his behavior. Not surprisingly, that poster was NOT a member of UT.

Steve, in this post and others, you seem to believe that you can hold posters responsible for the actions and posts of others. I will never understand that thinking. You seem to believe membership in an organization obligates us to the consequences of the behavior of all members of that organization.

I am a repbulican. Will I be held personally responsible for G.W. Bush's actions? I am a teacher. Am I liable for the actions of other teachers or of the teacher's union? I own a small business. Am I responsible for the conduct of the executive director of the Chamber of Commerce? I am a college umpire. Am I responsible for the actions or whomever works the plate at the College World Series?

The sensible person will know that I am not. Neither am I responsible for the actions of any other umpire on the internet.

All I ask it that I be held to the same standard to which I hold you. I do not insist that you speak out against a certain umpire before I will listen to you. I do not insist you have no right to your opinion because you ignored some post by someone I don't like three days ago.

Why the double standard?

I am an umpire/writer who deserves to be judged by my actions, my words, my behavior, my writings. If you want to slam me for anything I did, said or wrote, fine. But I will not be crucified for the perceived sins of others. (I am not that perfect)

Somehow, Steve, you've got to get past being a victim and holding everyone responsible. It's time for a little personal responsibility. If you have a gripe with someone, discuss it with them. I don't want to hear about it. It's not my concern.

If you have a gripe with me, let me know. I'm more than willing to take the consequences of my actions. I am not willing, and nobody should have to accept the consequences of someone else's actions.

Perhaps that is too much of a republican philsosophy for some to understand. I hope not.


BTW: Even though I am a republican, I voted with the majority in this last election. So please don't blame me for George the Second.

[Bfair]

Simply put, Garth, I think you misunderstood again. I will leave it at that as the posts are there for all to review and make their own determination. I am confident others may read them more accurately.

To Warren I say, don't leave the pajama party, it wouldn't be the same without you. I think most appreciate and respect your knowledge and dignity. I do-----and enjoy hearing what you have to say and think.

With respect,
Steve

[PeteBooth]

I am resigning my membership of UT, and I am resigning my position as a freelance contributor to eUmpire.com forthwith. Frankly, I give up. I give up trying to deal in a gentlemanly fashion with all the politics, personalities and passions here. It is just too taxing. right in every detail of your analysis. Pity.

Warren now it's time to get some NY Savy and to hell with what people think. This is the Internet Forum and now we are all finding out it's fatal flaw - KEYBOARD RAGE.

I'm from NY and by no means am I in conspiracy with UT memebers. I've only been to Houston (I work for an oil Compnay) on a few occassions. I express my opinions on what I PERECEIVE not what ANYONE ELSE pereceives. Sometimes I feel as both Papa C and you and other times I'm on the opposite "Side of the Spectrum" (remember the Appeal Play).

It all depends upon the subject matter.

I always felt that when you disagree with me it was in a professional way and not in an attacking way. People need to get a grip. Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time, otherwise life would be boring.

The bottom line which I think many forget is: WHAT DOES YOUR ASSOCIATION SAY. That's what's most important. In NY, if one starts calling those TECHNICAL Balks (which have no bearing on the play as this discussion indicated) - One will find themselves officiating PEE WEE Basketball in the not so distant future.

All we are doing here is showing another way. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT - that's what learning is all about.

So Warren do not let this latest episode deter you as I said get some NY Savy. There are plenty who want to understand both sides and see what works best for them.

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Dave writes: "But if George W. makes some of the same mistakes his Democrat predecessor made, and you mute your criticism because he's on your side, whereas you were very loudly critical of the Democrat, then that is an inconsistency, and it is your inconsistency, not George W.'s or Bill Clinton's, and it is logically traceable to the bias that exists because of your established affiliation."

I understand now. I can't determine whose behavior I can accept and whose I cannot. That apparently is left to others. So I cannot be upset when, oh lets say Paul Orwell attacks me personally because you have decided someone I know may have done the same previously to someone else.

Sorry, again, that is illogical. I will stand up to the consequences of my actions, not someone elses. Let me know when you start accepting the consequence of someone else's actions.

BTW: And I decided not to vote for George the Second after his "internet umpire" like attacks on my preferred candidate, McCain. Should I have asked if this was okay, first?

[Bfair]

Garth, I hope this is clearer and more understandable to you than my most recent posts have been.

What he said!!!!!


With literary accuracy,
Steve

[GarthB]

Dave writes:

"If you criticize the behavior of someone you are known to be at odds with, but remain silent in the face of similar behavior by someone you are affiliated with, then the accusation that you are inconsistent in your response to bad behavior, or that your response is influenced by your bias for or against the person committing the bad behavior, is a reasonable, "in-bounds" observation."

This is the thrust of my point, Dave...Similar ACCORDING TO WHOM?
You? Steve? Rich? Warren?

You are assuming that your perception is THE perception and that I share it. Fatal flaw. You are now deciding to become the arbiter for the boards.

Forget the rest of your post, this is the entire thrust of the matter. You have no right to make that decision for me, or for anyone else. Period.