General Instructions: Generally Ignored

[Bfair]

Lawrence, nobody likes the bickering, but don't be fooled by the class Poindexter who throws tomatoes at you and then looks around to see who the culprit was. When I first came to the boards I was highly supportive of Carl the person and Carl the rules specialist. It was shortly thereafter in questioning him that he attacked me. You see, I wouldn't accept what he provided as dictate and wanted further explanation. Fact of the matter, he didn't have a good explanation and preferred to sidestep the issue.

In reality, most if not all respect Carl's knowledge of baseball. What they will not respect has nothing to do with the message nor the messenger, rather, it is the means in which the messenger chooses to deliver the message. If you will look at the start of this thread, the first thing he did was attack the "Gas House Gang" (those who may question or disagree with him) referencing their need to "change calls they have booted" with further reference to their "hidden agendas". He further demeans those discussing the varyihng views as those with "attempts to justify bad umpiring." In other words, he (the authority) tries to publicly ridicule those who have the intestinal fortitude to question his content or his ungentlemanly and unprofessional mannerisms.

He then proceeds to explain how these people disagree with him because of WHO he is rather than having anything to do with the content of the matter. Lawrence, that is pure hogwash !! It is one of his regularly used tricks to belittle those who merely question or disagree with him. He further ridicules his perceived adversary by highlighting that he doesn't follow all the General Instructions. This is a person who wrote an article on how he circumvented a rule based on the "intent" of the player despite the player's actions being specifically illegal. I am not saying Carl is wrong in his writings. I am saying it is hypocrisy for him to practice that which he ridicules.

He then has the audacity to summarize in his last post what a good guy he is and how he has been attacked by the bad guys. Sorry, Bubba, there is no white cowboy hat on that Texan. Throw the tomatoes and run to teacher complaining about those attacking you. Why not start to realize you bring about your own problems. Others came to discuss baseball, you must muddy it with inuendos and demeaning remarks. You may know your baseball, but you don't know people. I came with the excitement of seeing your posts. I stood up for you when others attacked you. Soon afterward you attacked me. You continued to attack me and others. You make your own bed and should realize it. Quit begging for acceptance from others to cover your obvious personal weaknesses.

I still respect his baseball content, it's such a shame we all endure that cr@pola he starts.

Just my opinion,
The Neo-Romantic

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
I still respect his baseball content, it's such a shame we all endure that cr@pola he starts.Just my opinion,
The Neo-Romantic

An interesting -- and revealing -- response. Now: Where do you stand on the four issues I outlined? Enough about me; you spent your entire post attacking me. You said nothing about baseball. Not one word. You have proved my point in just one, typical message.

Put up or shut up. Now! Let's hear the gospel according to Steve. I suggested four topics where strong disagreement with my positions occurs. How stand you?

I believe umpires should:

1. Support the organization that hires us.
2. Resist the iconoclastic teaching that applies PRO philosophy to the amateur game.
3. Examine objectively new ideas about mechanics.
4. Accept willingly official interpretations and authoritative opinion.

Further, I suggested that the ideas cynics post on the Internet harm umpires of amateur games. I pointed to the following oft-repeated statements:

1. Do as your assignor says or you won’t advance.
2. If enforcing that rule upsets the coaches, don’t enforce it.
3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real?
4. A system of mechanics isn’t necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand.
5. Umpiring ain’t that hard.
6. Who needs to know the rules?
7. The customer is always right.

Let's hear which of those you agree with. Do you disagree with any of those as strongly as you dislike my manner? If so, tell us. Explain how you differ from those who have made a cottage-industry out of trying to discredit my opinions.

You will have to search diligently to find any personal attack in this post. I expect the same courtesy in your reply.

Let's say I agree to all your descriptions of my past behavior. Let's say I am on bended knee, begging for your forgiveness. Let's say the slate is clean. Let's say I have finally accepted you are a "real" person and not a pseudonym.

I'm waiting for your answers.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 10th, 2001 at 09:41 AM]

[Ump20]

Warren,

Linking Carl and sensitivity in the same sentence somehow seems unwieldy. I'm not sure that quote you attributed to me was ever posted by me but the sentiment is certainly one I share. I've often seen your name mentioned as well as another self proclaimed umpire expert aka "apostle".

Quite honestly my first or second year of umpiring which I began in 1992, I purchased Behind The Mask and Taking Charge both authored by Carl. Did I think his writing made him appear somewhat pompous? Yes I did, but I preferred to attribute it to self-confidence born of experience. Even in his current book, which is only $2.00 more ten years later, he uses himself many times as an example of an umpire who screwed up perfectly fine games. I know this book has far fewer underlining by me so I guess it reflects how much I have learned from sound officials such as Carl and yourself.

I am now an "instructor" in my own association and it is human nature to want to be thought of well by others, even respected. I like this board but I wish there were a lot more submissions. Even the name-calling is more modified but somehow I miss "butt-snuffler" {I hope that passes the censors]. Thanks for being a mentor even if we've never met on the field. Jim Simms/NY

[Dave Hensley]

I've read pretty much every post Mr. Childress has made in public areas on the Internet since he came online - RSO, McGriff's, eteamz, URC, eumpire - as well as much of his private posts, having been a charter and active member of UmpireTalk (both versions) until a few months ago, and I have to say this post is one of the best he's ever written. Not only does it show, modestly and without embellishment, why he legitimately is the expert and authority he "claims" to be, it also succinctly captures the principles and structure of an approach to the craft of umpiring amateur baseball games that has won me over as a convert probably 95% of the time.

I agree with his cautions about the "pro attitude" in amateur ball. I teach much of his 21st Century Mechanics to the youth umpires I train. I apply a hierarchy to my "acceptance" of interpretations that begins with the rulebook but welcomes clarifications and expansions from official interpretations and authoritative opinions.

Carl perhaps doesn't realize that the "gang" he considers to be his loyal (or not so loyal, as the case may be) opposition really isn't all that often opposed to his ideas and/or his teachings. He bemoans that they (we, I guess, since I think he considers me one of the ingrates) only come out of the woodwork to argue with something he's said, never to say "atta boy." The problem here, I think, is that Carl has never understood or agreed with the generally accepted Internet protocol of NOT posting "me, too" posts. Most people don't post them, most people agree they're pretty useless and they just clutter up the boards, but Carl, I think, sees a need and has a desire for the "me, too" or the "amen, brother!" type of post in support of his ideas. Even if the silent majority totally understands, agrees with, and utilizes his teachings (which describes me almost all the time), it pisses him off that we don't "say so" in public. And, he probably has a legitimate gripe in that area.

That said, however, Carl is also his own worst enemy when he is so quick to go negative on a personal level, and write off someone's disagreement as sour grapes over some past argument, an inarguably ad hominem tactic. When I left UT I described Carl as a Tasmanian devil bouncing around the different Internet sites like a tornado, and I said Carl is to umpires what Ty Cobb was to players. He probably thinks that's more a compliment than a criticism. It's like Microsoft software - what many of us think is a bug, he looks at as a feature.

I don't think anyone is looking for Carl (or his associates at eumpire.com) to be their sensitivity trainer. But we are adults, we are fellow umpires, and we are, in many cases, paying customers of the site that sponsors this discussion forum. It is both good business sense and common decency for the editor of eumpire.com and his staff to treat participants in this forum with courtesy and respect at all times, even in disagreement.

I take Carl's post as a pledge to try harder to meet that standard. I applaud him for that commitment, and I hope his leadership by example will instill a kinder and gentler approach from everyone else for whom the shoe fits.

And, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, let it be known that I will not be the one to break the peace that has been made here today.

P.S. I started this reply before anyone else had replied, but I had to leave the computer to take my son to baseball practice. I see that other replies have been made in the interim, but I have not read them. This reply is based solely on the content of Carl's 2/10, 2:24am post.

[Ump20]

Carl,

I must admit I didn't read your post the first time. Its sheer length scared me off. However, after someone else commented about the "new Carl" I had to take a look. What impressed me is that the new Carl is just like the old Carl. Don't you ever sleep?

By the way, thanks for all of your advice, some of which has been free, some of which was "fee for service". 95% of what I read by you I buy. The 5% I choose not to use is only done after a lot of thought and never without the possibility of future change such as the Umpire in C with a runner on first base.

Keep on trying.

Jim Simms

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

I believe umpires should:

1. Support the organization that hires us.

Further, I suggested that the ideas cynics post on the Internet harm umpires of amateur games. I pointed to the following oft-repeated statements:

1. Do as your assignor says or you won’t advance.
2. If enforcing that rule upsets the coaches, don’t enforce it.
3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real?
4. A system of mechanics isn’t necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand.
5. Umpiring ain’t that hard.
6. Who needs to know the rules?
7. The customer is always right.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 10th, 2001 at 09:41 AM] [/B]

I see a potential confict between what we should do (support our organization and its rules) and what we shouldn't do (in a nutshell, sell out to the assignor/league/coaches/customer). National organizations such as FED, NCAA, LL, etc. don't normally experience these conflicts because their practices, interpretations, mechanics, etc. are standardized nationwide. The local organizations, even those "sanctioned" by nationwide organizations such as USSSA, Babe Ruth, etc. are generally going to do what the umpire assignor/supervisor advises them of what should be done, and they generally don't give a rat's ass of what the NAPBL, J/R, JEA, or BRD says. If the assignor says it's "1 + 1" on an overthrow that goes into the dugout, by golly that's what the local organization is going to put in their local rulebook.

So when my assignor, acting on behalf of the local association, tells me I should call this or that, despite what the OBR, NAPBL, or other source says, am I supporting the organization that hires me, or am I "selling out"?

Dennis

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis
Childress, if I were you I wouldn't spend so much bandwidth on the NKNs. They/we bring you free advertisement and keep your name on the lips of every umpire utilizing the Internet. I'D worry about the BFDs out there. They're the ones that have scanned your 2001 BRD [note the similarity] and are passing it along free of charge through the Internet.

I have snipped all of this post except the statement about a criminal act. Mr. Davis, I have forwarded your message to the appropriate authorities, along with your email address. Likely you will be contacted for further information -- and soon. If your statement is true, then be certain you don't have one of those illegal copies on your hard drive. If you're just blowing smoke, I suggest you set the record straight.

The owners of the copyright to the BRD are deadly serious about your assertion.

[Ump20]

I see a potential confict between what we should do (support our organization and its rules) and what we shouldn't do (in a nutshell, sell out to the assignor/league/coaches/customer). National organizations such as FED, NCAA, LL, etc. don't normally experience these conflicts because their practices, interpretations, mechanics, etc. are standardized nationwide...

So when my assignor, acting on behalf of the local association, tells me I should call this or that, despite what the OBR, NAPBL, or other source says, am I supporting the organization that hires me, or am I "selling out"?

Dennis [/B][/QUOTE]

Having umpired FED ball on Long Island I can say it certainly is not consistent with "national" standards. One example is the Balk rule. My observation is that in high school ball OBR rules are what were used because this is what the coaches expected. To hell with FED was the action taken because coaches' ratings of umpires were the key to moving from JV to Varsity or getting playoff assignments. Another example was the "automatic strike" rule meant to speed up the game. One guy I know called about 15 of these the first two weeks it was in effect. Few others followed suit. Eventually the rule was modified more in the spirit of speeding up the game rather than calling "extra strikes". If you want to get a rule changed "call it by the book" is the recommendation some make. This smacks in the face of the reality that FED is a slow moving organization that has put "education" into sports. Finally, in New York State high school ball the ten run rule still is not in effect. Maybe since umpires here are paid the most a little overtime in say a 32-2 game shouldn't bother them.

I know my association is always looking for good umpires even sometimes just umpires. If you are willing to work, know your stuff, and can relate well to coaches you can call what the rulebook or accepted norms say you should call. If someone wants to tell you that an overthrow is one plus one you simply have to point the runner to the right base. Most of the times it's going to be the same base as the common misconception. Now if they tell you the hands are part of the bat... Jim/NY

[Ump20]

Dear Hayes,

I don't know you but I can tell you my visits to "the Boards" in general have been less frequent than I would like. One reason why I joined here as a PAID Member is simply because I don't want to put up with the petty BS that goes on at McGriff's and elsewhere. I come here to be enlightened or at least challenged about baseball umpiring. I'm not going to defend Carl's quirks. His insults are just as counterproductive as anyone else's. However, when he focuses on umpiring, even at 2:00 am, he gets my attention. If you have a real difference with Carl please take it "off-line". Write him a nasty note or something.

Thanks for your consideration. Jim/NY

[Carl Childress]

One of the posters to this Board suggests that the National League instructions are contrary to the material I quoted from Evans. He believes that means I quoted a half-truth.

First: I quoted Evans only as support for my position that the "General Instructions" that follow the rules are outdated. I had forgotten about Make the Right Call. I'm glad to be reminded that that source also supersedes the "General Instructions." The fact that the National League published its own set of Instructions seems to bolster my argument, rather than refute it. Thanks for reminding me.

Second: Even so, the National League instructions leave much to be desired. Here's an example: "When a pitch hits the batter after hitting his bat, the umpire shall indicate clearly and decisively that it was a foul tip." Now, they don't really mean that, do they?

Third: Here's one of the statements I quoted from Evans. You'll note that it does not specifically support my opinion on the dropped ball of the original enciting play, but it does speak to an umpire changing a call because of additional information:

QUOTE 1: Call all plays decisively, but not too quickly. If decisions are not called too quickly, there will be very little reason to reverse a decision but sometimes this may be necessary. If an umpire is blocked out and his partner has a better view of the play, the umpire should solicit his partner's help to make sure the play is called correctly. The main objective is to have all decisions ultimately correct.

Here now is part of the material from the National League instructions:

QUOTE 2: Assistance is not requested except when the responsible umpire is "blocked out" from seeing all the elements of a play or he has substantial reason to believe that his positioning did not afford him the proper position to render an accurate call.

Gracious me, I've just discovered that I inadvertently reversed the quotes. (grin) QUOTE 1 is the National League; QUOTE 2 is Evans. How could I have made such a mistake! (another grin)

My two points, I believe, are clear:

1. That the National League adds instructions for its umpires proves those "General Instructins" following the rules are out of date.
2. The main idea contained in the material quoted from each of the sources is that an umpire should get help when his view of a play is blocked.

Finally: Allow me to correct a misconception. I did not retire TO Edinburg. I retired IN Edinburg, where I have lived for the last quarter century. According to the Chamber of Commerce, the average annual temperature is 78º. My wife informed me this morning that I must pull on my shorts and mow the lawn this afternoon.


[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 10th, 2001 at 04:01 PM]

[L.G. Dorsey]

Carl,

I appreciate the thorough response you gave to my concerns. I understand your position on the "history" of the jousting that has occurred here and I can appreciate your position. However, eventually someone has to to step up to the plate (pardon the poor pun) and stop the madness. I have read that you are a retired English teacher and it is obvious from your posts that you have a great command of the English language and your composition skills are quite good. It is that background and talent that I think gets you into trouble sometimes. I often read your posts and think "Man, that guy makes some good points" only to find extraneous jabs or comments that you may think nothing of but come across as offensive to unsuspecting posters (This does not include those who you have a prior history with).

Carl, I am a scientist by training. Science is full of criticism and some of the worst criticism I have seen has occurred in scientific journals and at scientific meetings. However, rarely does it become personal,particularly in written communication. In cases like these, you typically see the science criticized but not the scientist. But, if we use deductive reasoning we can logically equate bad scientists with bad science. You see my point is that I agree we all have the right to disagree and have our own opinions. We can do this in a constructive way without starting a war.

I do not mean to single you out. There are others who engage in this behavior as well. They need to take a step back and pull in the reins. I tend to brush off most of the snide remarks I see on these boards simply because I have more important things to do than come up with crafty comebacks. With that said, I do learn a tremendous amount from you and the other posters about umpiring. My whole premise for starting this discussion was to say "Hey, let's bring this back to what we are here for, umpiring!". It would be a lot easier to read through posts if the message was on target and not muddled with hyperbole and personal attacks.

I want you and others to stick to their guns about their beliefs. Umpires are no different from any other vocation. There is not one exact way to do things and there never will be. Your points about pro mechanics are dead on. Why do think everyone works the box coming out of PRO school, it has nothing to with it being the absolute best position for everyone (Jim Evans has a great diagram of an umpire in four different stances with his head in the exact same location). Instead, it puts every candidate on a level scale for evaluations. I agree that pro mechanics are the same way. Jim Evans and his staff preached to us at the FL CLassic this year that the base umpire should be able to call the DP and look for interference at 2nd without PU assistance. I don't think these guys have called a game with the FED slide rule. There will be times when a guy overslides 2nd or contact occurs immediately after the ball is gone and you (BU) have already turned to call the back end. Then what do you do? I don't pretend to have the right answer but it let me know that different times call for different approaches.

I'll end my post now and drift back out of the light. I just wanted to point out to everyone that we all paid good money for umpiring instruction through eumpire and if you're like me, money doesn't come easy. So why waste your time and money with petty in-fighting? Let's talk mechanics, rules, and theory without the verbal sparring....


Lawrence



[Edited by L.G. Dorsey on Feb 10th, 2001 at 09:45 PM]

[Ump20]

Lawrence,

I think your comments are right on. I too have learned a lot from Carl Childress as well as others such as Warren Willson and Jim Porter. When I see those negative jabs directed at Carl I almost cringe because I know that more often than not Carl will feel an urge to defend himself to posters who are just out to get his goat. I want Carl to share his ideas with those who value his opinions, experience, and observations. Maybe he will do this going forward.

Now, lets get back to umpiring. Jim/NY

[Tim C]

Umpiring STILL ain't that tough.

WOW! What a thread.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
I've often seen your name mentioned as well as another self proclaimed umpire expert aka "apostle".

Those are two titles which I openly and honestly abhor, Jim, and I know you haven't applied either label where I'm concerned.

Firstly, I have NEVER claimed any expertise on my own account. It is against my personal nature, as much as it is against our Australian national character, to make any such lofty claims. Nevertheless, you are correct that I have been wrongly accused as such elsewhere.

Secondly, I have deep, personal, religious convictions that prevent me being an "apostle" for anyone but Jesus. I might applaud the knowledge, experience or expertise of someone like Carl Childress but it should never be presumed that makes me their "apostle". And before anyone starts in with claims that I can't be a very good Christian, or I must be some sort of hypocrite, let me state for the record that it is because of those deep, personal, religious convictions that I could never claim to be anything but a sinner just like everyone else! No moral high road is being vaunted here.

Carl and I have had some monumental disagreements from time to time, but they haven't been nasty on a personal level since we came to know and respect each other through our correspondence. That certainly doesn't mean that we haven't figuratively bared our teeth at one another from time to time; but it is never taken personally. We just have too much respect for each other to go that route. Would that others showed equal respect for us in this forum. Still, the last time I asked for that, certain people elected to misread that I had instead demanded unquestioning respect for our views. *sigh*

Quite honestly my first or second year of umpiring which I began in 1992, I purchased Behind The Mask and Taking Charge both authored by Carl. Did I think his writing made him appear somewhat pompous? Yes I did, but I preferred to attribute it to self-confidence born of experience. Even in his current book, which is only $2.00 more ten years later, he uses himself many times as an example of an umpire who screwed up perfectly fine games. I know this book has far fewer underlining by me so I guess it reflects how much I have learned from sound officials such as Carl and yourself.

I am now an "instructor" in my own association and it is human nature to want to be thought of well by others, even respected. I like this board but I wish there were a lot more submissions. Even the name-calling is more modified but somehow I miss "butt-snuffler" {I hope that passes the censors]. Thanks for being a mentor even if we've never met on the field. Jim Simms/NY

Well, Jim, I can't say that I would ever "miss" the "butt-snuffler" label, especially for the times it was rudely applied to me in that other forum. Unlike L G Dorsey, I lament not only that we apparently cannot seem to get along as fellow officials, but also our evident predisposition to see ourselves in opposing "camps" and so hold to the liberal or conservative line of those so-called camps no matter what. I lament that some people seem unable to fathom that the many times that Carl and I agree on something might just be because the view we share is the right or appropriate view, and not because I am his "apostle" or because we see ourselves in the same "camp". I simply prefer to be able to say on Subject A "Yes, I agree because...", and on Subject B "No, I disagree because..." regardless of which "camp" or individual postulated the theory or point of view. I also lament that too often any disagreement takes on a personal overtone at about the same time the opponent runs out of logic or reason. There are people in this thread who have openly lamented that too, and yet they have been principally guilty of that very tactic in debating with me on numerous occasions.

All the same, Jim, I appreciate that you believe what I have contributed has been useful to you in your officiating. That was always the objective, right alongside picking up some useful hints for myself! (grin) I apologise for using your post to springboard into this discussion of the ethics of posting in discussion forums.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I don't think anyone is looking for Carl (or his associates at eumpire.com) to be their sensitivity trainer. But we are adults, we are fellow umpires, and we are, in many cases, paying customers of the site that sponsors this discussion forum. It is both good business sense and common decency for the editor of eumpire.com and his staff to treat participants in this forum with courtesy and respect at all times, even in disagreement.

I take Carl's post as a pledge to try harder to meet that standard. I applaud him for that commitment, and I hope his leadership by example will instill a kinder and gentler approach from everyone else for whom the shoe fits.

And, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, let it be known that I will not be the one to break the peace that has been made here today.

Dave,

You want to be treated "with courtesy and respect at all times, even in disagreement." So you SHOULD be! This is one of those (apparently) rare subjects upon which we agree 100%. Now, having said that, isn't the corollary equally true? Aren't Carl and his staff writers, including me, entitled to be treated with equal "courtesy and respect at all times, even in disagreement"?

I urge you to consider that for the very reasons that you expressed - namely good business sense and common decency - the pressure has always been on US from the outset to be courteous where courtesy was lacking and to show respect where none was given. It has only been in the last week that both Carl and I have thrown off the shackles and determined to give as good as we got in general discussions. That was, BTW, a decision apparently arrived at simultaneously yet quite independently. In my case it followed the absence of any guidelines on the subject from the board owners, and an increasing incidence of nastiness in posts directed at US!

I asked, quite some time ago now, for a voluntary code of conduct to be adopted in this Forum with respect to posts addressing the editor and staff writers. It was wrongly assumed that I was demanding unquestioning respect for our views. Will you now, for your part, promise to desist from finding ad hominem attacks in almost everything we post which disagrees with your viewpoint? Please, Dave, move on to finding ad misericordiam arguments at least, for pity's sake! Here's your chance right here! (BIG grin)

Look, this IS a serious issue; make no mistake. I want the tone of this board to be at least CIVIL if not downright respectful! We are ALL officials, I believe, with experience of having to face unwarranted criticism in pursuing our avocation. Why visit it upon ourselves in this Forum? The point is EVERYONE has to participate, and those who refuse MUST be quickly ostracised for the good of the whole. Even one dissenter will bring the voluntary code of conduct undone, eventually.

Dave, never doubt that "the shoe fits" even YOU! And don't be mistaken, I know only too well that Vito Corleone was plotting a bloody revenge for Santino's death even as he spoke those noble words! Now, can we REALLY put away the swords and deal respectfully with one another, or is this just another instance of the pot calling the kettle black?

Cheers,