Putting the Game in Blues Hands

[Ump20]

The whole point of my argument is that what keeps the game alive is its fans. What keeps them fans is very much the history and traditions of the game; its laudible ideals for providing balance and rewarding effort. When people start believing that money is all its about, the game will be dead. You can see that now in the disenchantment of so many fans with the big money players who are so obviously committed only to themselves and their own well-being. That disenchantment echos through the whole structure of the game in your country AND mine. That is why kids are leaving in droves to play soccer, among other sports. The game is off the rails and it is the lust for money, without a care for history and tradition, that put it there!...

Look, I find nothing wrong with using money as a "carrot" to recruit and retain officials. It is only when money becomes the official's SOLE reason for participating that I believe it is harmful. It promotes an attitude that sacrifices what is good and valuable about the game to the politics of self interest. Near enough is good enough. It is bad enough that this is what drives the pro's. Do we have to tolerate it among the amateurs as well? Shouldn't the pure love of the game at least play a part?

In amateur leagues where players are not paid, coaches are not paid and scorekeepers are not paid it is wrong that officials who are usually paid, at least in reimbursement of their expenses, don't look to help preserve the game for those helping them to continue enjoying its benefits. No wonder they abuse us at every turn! And all of this began as a discussion of recruiting new officials and why you, in particular, refuse to participate in that effort.

I'm sorry, Jim. I may be naive but your raw cynicism on this issue simply leaves me cold. Don't take that personally, though. It's just the way things are. A2D.

Cheers,

What a breath of fresh air to see Warren and Peter and others disagree without any need to denigrate the other's personhood or ability. I see a bit of truth in both positions. I certainly think that as an umpire association we "service" leagues. Thus if the younger kids don't want to play with the infield fly rule because "ordinary effort" never happens, I can live with that. If the older kids want to run for the pitcher and the catcher that's quite acceptable. I think that it is important to put these "house rules" in writing and to have them apply to all games within that league. Otherwise we'll have the Blues vs. Reds tell me that last week we ruled that ball a ground rule triple because it's so darn far and this was just fine with Umpire Smitty. Now I get to look like the bad guy with no "customer service skills" when I tell the coaches "not today fellas". Thus part of me agrees with Peter's "business plan" for umpires especially since from what I understand his "employees" go to seminars (clinics) where they work on improving their skills. I would like to see those "exit interviews" about why turnover is so high and I would try for a better balance in terms of age. I think in general it is difficult to put a 20 yr old umpire on a field where players are say 16-18. 1/2 vote for Peter.

I am pretty tired of professional sports in general and it's born of baseball card shows where autographs are sold, to spousal assaults and other crimes, to exorbitant salaries, and hand-in-hand ever-increasing ticket prices. Last month I went to a New York Islander hockey game and sat three rows off the ice in seats that cost $72 each! I was given the tickets. There is no way on principle that I would pay that kind of money. For every player like Derek Jeter there are ten that don't give a damn about the fans, the players that came before them, or the rules or traditions of the game. Then on the other hand former President Bush is paid $80,000 for one speech on Long Island and Clinton gets $125,000 to speak in Florida. Babe Ruth when he was paid $80,000 was told he was making more than the President of the United States and he said, "I had a better year". I agree with Warren that money can't be the "sole" reason for umpiring. It can be a primary reason or it can be what brought someone to the sport but if they don't have an appreciation of baseball and its traditions than maybe the "business plan" needs to be re-examined. If the umpire is not investing in new equipment, new uniforms etc he/she is lacking in professionalism. I like to think of us not as "amateur umpires" but as "professionals in amateur baseball". So this is the part where Warren gets 1/2 of my vote (without a hanging chad). Jim/NY

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
It is clear I umpire primarily for money. The point is that I don't view that as selfish in the least. I don't accuse leagues of selfishly exploiting umpires when I think their fees are insufficient. That was the foundation of the "value given, value received" remark. Most folks don't agree with all my methods. That's o.k.--it's a two-way street.

I don't umpire selfishly for money. I try very hard to give good value for the league's umpiring dollar. I think that's the most profitable way to operate. (grin)

Yeah, A2D, with no ill feeling. Unlike you I would and HAVE accused a league of selfishly exploiting its officials. Of course, I smiled when I did it! (grin) In the wash up they agreed and raised our fees. Giving the league good value for its umpiring dollar is honest dealing. I can't fault that, but I'm careful about who decides what that "good value" really is. In a climate where the league decides your contracts I can easily see how that would be the most profitable way to operate.

I'm not so sure that you're as commercially motivated as you appear from your posts, Jim, but if that's the way you choose to see yourself who am I to argue. (grin)

Cheers,