|
Sun Feb 11, 2001, 10:08am
|
|||
|
|||
Ready to strart a new baseball season
CC, thank you for acknowledging my existence. John Merrick and I were both worried. Again, I will apologize for past differences in rhetoric and pledge to attempt to talk baseball within the same mannerisms displayed by you. I do not now nor have I ever professed to have the detailed rule and interpretation knowledge which you possess. Sometimes that means I must seek assistance. That is why I came to the boards. I hope my questions and responses will be accepted as legitimate. As usual, and as usually stated, I speak of my opinion (which I realize may mean little to most).
CC (quoted): 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 wont advance. 2. If enforcing that rule upsets the coaches, dont enforce it. 3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real? 4. A system of mechanics isnt necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand. 5. Umpiring aint that hard. 6. Who needs to know the rules? 7. The customer is always right. First, I don't preach gospel nor do I feel I present it that way. I have studied hard, gained significant experience, but still have much to learn. What that means is that I know enough to get in trouble. You are obviously aware of that already. Yet I seek to improve. Above you list your pros & cons. As some have stated, I question if they can truly be separated. Sometines the organization and the assignor(s) agree, sometimes not. That is where the decision must be made, and those decisions CAN and will affect your advancement. I am not certain in my understanding of your phrase " iconoclastic teaching" but think it means continuing to apply Pro standards to amateur. If so, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement (as I frequently do). However, I must also combine that statement with your last statement with respect to "official interpretations" and authoritative opinion. In doing so, I would question are we not taking "official interpretation" made by the Pros for Pro baseball and thereby passing it along to apply to amateurs? If so, is there not contradiction in items 2 and 4 of your list? I would think so. For that reason, I could not agree with your last statement carte blanche---"willingly" may be the obstacle. I am unaware of a sytem for promoting such "official interpretations". I hope you would agree there is a flaw in the system when a group of amateur umpires must be advised by you that the General Instructions to Umpires (printed in the rulebook) are outdated and no longer apply because they have been replaced by a Pro accepted version. BTW, how many umpires are out there using this section of the rulebook which I am now told iS no longer applicable---MOST. When we disagree with other officials I can tell them to check the forum online to get the proper and current info---forget the book. A definite problem exists !! I don't feel wrong in accepting the book until something is official and made so in print to the general public of umpiring community. If we are supposed to regularly accept interpretations and aplications from you as "official", than there is a flaw in the system. No personal attack there, just a poor system. Something needs to be established to publicize such "official" interpretations. Even at that, are they still not Pro interpretations? Why not a Council of Amateur Baseball? They could address rules, interpretations, and application of rules on a national basis. Perhaps we could find and locate a rules expert who might have the contacts in place to start such???? Major amateur leagues could send representatives. I for one, would even BUY their casebooks, etc if such were accepted on a national basis. Just a thought. From such a group, I would be far more likely to "accept willingly official interpretation." I think many on the boards might agree. Listing 7 items and making them appear as "proposals" of your cynics is inappropriate. Your may have deduced this list to apply to your perceived adversaries, but I wouldn't agree with it. There are items (topics) in there that are true and do exist. To turn a head and say they don't exist is poppycock (I hope I got that one right, Warren). Those that raise questions regarding these issues are not necessarily promoting the issues, rather, they are opening them up for discussion. Quite frankly, I can think of few better places to do it than an online forum. I don't feel discussing the issues, how to handle them, and how they affect us is wrong. Some dislike and are reluctant to address certain issues at times. Reading and interpreting the rulebook is no different than the Bible. There are many Christian religions that agree in principle yet interpret and apply the Bible differently. We are no different. Yes, the situation can improve, but will never be perfect. Disagreements in interpretation and application will likely always exist. I do aplogize again for my last post which addressed not a single baseball item. I was enraged by the remembrance of a 4th grader throwing tomatoes and running to the teacher to claim sanctity and innocence. I look forward to improved forums and certainly improved communication on behalf of most. Sincerely, Bfair Steve Freix Just my opinion, |
|
Sun Feb 11, 2001, 12:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ready to strart a new baseball season
Quote:
Let's just do one at a time: Umpiring ain't that tough. Make it easy on us. No long-winded remarks about what I may or may not be doing about my adversaries. You say you'll be better, but this post wasn't much different from your previous ones. It's still all Carl's fault. Why should we believe Carl? Answer: Because I'm Carl and I have an international reputation for reporting the truth. That's why. If you don't like that, that your business. Your not liking it doesn't make it any less the truth. Let's get serious. Tim C says, repeatedly, "Umpiring ain't that tough." Do you agree with him: Yes or No. Your next post should be just one word. |
|
Sun Feb 11, 2001, 05:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
Can't we all just get along...... for Carl, L.J. and Bfair
Quote:
I'd like to take your short "test" of fidelity to baseball and officiating. I know I wasn't invited directly, but it might help Steve, L.G. and others if someone makes the first move to declare their position on the issues you have raised. 1. Support for the organisation that hires you: Absolutely. They pay the fees and they get my best efforts to call the game the way they expect. If there is conflict with the rules as written or interpreted I will STILL call it their way if they have put that "way" in writing for my personal protection (an Australian insurance issue that may not affect y'all). 2. Resist the iconoclastic teaching that applies Pro philosophy to the amateur game: No question. The players, managers and coaches I deal with are volunteers and unlike me they don't get paid even in reimbursement of their expenses. I respect them for that. I treat them in accordance with that respect. They are NOT the "rats" referred to at pro schools in my book. Confrontation with them is NOT on my agenda when I walk onto the diamond. I am there to call the game in accordance with the principles outlined in OBR 9.01, not to saw them off at the knees every time they approach me. That more gentle philosophy is appropriate to the amateur game. 3. Examine objectively new ideas about mechanics: All the time! I accept relatively few, and because of the structure of baseball in my country I can apply none of my own volition. That doesn't mean I cannot see the absolute sense or value in some of the proposed changes. I accept relatively few such ideas because they must show me proven advantages over the existing approved methods. "New" does not ipso facto equate with "good". There are, however, many "good" and "new" mechanics proposed from time to time. 4. Accept willingly official interpretations and authoritative opinion: No matter what! I accept and approve the system that gives me official interpretations and authoritative opinion to help me know what is right and proper in the rules of the game I love. I couldn't be without these devices. Does this mean I blindly accept, much less willingly accept, individual interpretations that I perceive to be wrong, foolish or otherwise valueless? No, it doesn't but if I am required to apply those interpretations anyway then I most certainly will. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my way should prevail, even over the official sources and recognised authorities. You also asked how people felt about the 7-headed hydra of philosophies outlined above. Here are my brief opinions on those philosophies. 1. Do as your assignor says or you won't advance: The clear implication here is "even if what he says is wrong". I can't do that. If I have to sacrifice what I know is right to the politics of "go along to get along" then I'd rather not get along. It is criminal that apparently some assignors WILL inhibit the advancement of some officials from political rather than professional motivations. If we condone that by acquiescence, we are equally guilty. Our advancement may well have been at the expense of someone who deserved it more. That said, I don't often disagree with my assignor, so it is no trouble to do what he says. I certainly don't go against his wishes without the assurance of absolutely certainty that what he proposes runs counter to the wishes of my league and the ABF on the question. 2. If enforcing a rule upsets the coaches, don't enforce it: Nuts! The Germans may not have understood that response in WWII, but I have no doubt most of the readers here will understand it! I don't work for the coaches and I don't work to PLEASE the coaches. I am the representative of the league and baseball and I take that charter seriously. 3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real: The clear implication is that Carl might report a false interpretation for some personal motive. Brazil NUTS! As an author and educator Carl Childress lives or dies by his reputation. Why on earth would such a person risk terminal damage to that reputation by deliberately misreporting an official interpretation? It doesn't make sense, and I prefer theories to at least make sense before I can espouse them. 4. A system of mechanics isn't necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand: I don't know what idiot put this one forward, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the same idiot would be the first one on an umpire's case for getting a call wrong because he wasn't in the best position to make that call. Of course mechanics are important, no matter what the fans or participants might care to think about where we stand. It is the result they care about, and the best possible results cannot be regularly found without sound mechanics. 5. Umpiring ain't that hard: There is much that I like about T Alan and his philosophies on life and baseball. He might be surprised to learn that. Unfortunately, while I understand the principle espoused here I certainly don't agree with this philosophy. It speaks to an attitude that near enough is good enough and good enough will always do. On the contrary, we should ALWAYS strive to improve, if even by the smallest of margins, wherever improvement is possible. As I have said elsewhere, umpiring like Life is a process of continual adjustment to the demands of our occupation. When you become complacent about making those adjustments I believe, as D.W. Hughes once suggested, you become a failure at that occupation. Failure at anything is not something I surrender to willingly. Tee, of course it's hard. To plagiarise Jimmy Dugan from A League Of Their Own, "It's the 'hard' that makes it great!" 6. Who needs to know the rules: WE do guldarnit! I believe the COACHES do as well, but I am not their keeper. I also believe it couldn't hurt the players to know them too! Shoot, our jobs would be whole lot easier and certainly more pleasant if we didn't have to defend every decision against ignorance! Know your self and know your occupation (including its rules). There is NO OTHER WAY to success in ANY occupation. 7. The customer is always right: Which customer? People who espouse this philosophy invariably, at least in my personal experience, don't know who the customer really is! Umpiring baseball is NOT a popularity contest. You don't have to dance and dress to please the judges! You have a higher responsibility to your league and to baseball, BOTH. When there is conflict one with the other, choose baseball and move on. We are the guardians of this great game on the diamond. Our role in it is not as the prostitute who sells her favour to the highest bidder. Despite what some believe, there is more to officiating the game than the money to be earned from exercising the power it confers. Some people will never see beyond the money. Fine. Just don't expect me to agree. I believe that does it. Any other takers for this pledge of allegiance to officiating baseball? Cheers, |
|
Sun Feb 11, 2001, 07:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hayes:
We have attempted to limit the number of personal attacks on this board. The mangement appears to let those which are attached to bonafide positions on issues slip through at times. But those that are made for no reason other than nastiness should be deleted. In light of that, your signature, "Those that can, umpire. Those that can't, retire to Edinburg, TX." should be deleted, as it does nothing but put forth a negative personal attack based soley on your opinion. If you cannot scrape forth the decency to delete it before management does, at least correct the grammar. It is "those WHO", not those "THAT". That, like which, normally refers to inanimate objects. "Who" is used to refer to people. If you insist on representing yourself as belittling, at least represent yourself as belittling, correctly. Garth
__________________
GB |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
