Several of the Gas House Gang have argued that the General Instructions allows them to change calls they have booted when it's for the good of the game.

We all know the hidden agenda those umpires are following. We all know they don't adhere to <b>all</b> the general instructions. I would like to hear just one tell me he carries his rule book onto the field or consults it to avoid a protest.

The arguments are nothing more than attempts to justify bad umpiring because those defending [name not used on request] don't like the umpires who pointed out what ought to be have been done. We read, then, for example, nonsense from an ordinarily good theoretician who will engage in the rankest contortions simply because he's angry with those on the other side.

Amazing!

The average umpire who stops in here can see that when Warren, Garth, or I post, there is a small group who immediately jump on the other side. The same names come up again and again.

What a pity!

Let's talk reality: <b>The General Instructions are not a part of the rules of baseball.</b> Those "instructions" now run about 500 8 1/2 by 11 pages and are distributed to each major league umpire. The comments in the "back of the book" were guidelines added AFTER THE RULES 50 years ago. Here's Jim Eavns:<ul>Shortly after the recodification in 1950, the rulesmakers added these General Instructions To Umpires. As a matter of record, the wording used in the 1955 rulebook is identical to today's. Though the game has endured significant changes and umpire training has become more highly developed, these fundamental instructions have remained unchanged; however, a redefining of their meanings is necessary. (JEA 9:31)</ul>Clearly, Evans says, in effect: "That's what they thought then; we don't think that anymore, and we don't teach that anymore."Concerning getting help, Evans also defines that clearly, listing three situations:<ol><li>Anytime an umpire suspects a misinterpretation of a rule by one of his partners, "Time" should be called and the interpretation and enforcement discussed.</li><li>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. Request for help should be minimized as it destroys the credibility of the umpire and negates the effectiveness of the multiple umpire system.</li><li>Umpires should always confer before accepting a protest.</li></ol>1. Correct a misinterpreted rule.

2. Get help when you are blocked out, such as on a dropped ball on a tag, or a ball over the fence. (JEA 9:16)
(I would argue asking the plate umpire for help on a play at second is not exactly what Jim Evans had in mind.) Remember, too, that some judgment calls do not admit of help. Finally, the implication of Jim's comments does seem to support asking for help <b>before</b> making a call.

3. Confer before accepting a protest; it might be avoided with proper implementation of the rules.

Evans also urges umpires to do all that "conferencing" in the open:<ul>Today's umpires do not use a "secret" set of signals to surreptitiously assist one another. Umpires in the multiple umpire systems prevalent today are responsible for specific areas of responsibility.</ul>Still, the comments or Mr. Evans are not official interpretations. But then neither are the "General Instructions to Umpires." They are so NOT a part of the rules, they don't even have a decimal number.

I urge umpires not to justify screwing up by referring to something that is long, long out of date -- and not canon law anyway.

Pure Arrogance
 

Truly atop the most arrogant statements you have posted in my short duration on the boards (5 months). No sense in quoting, it can be re-read if desired.

You show a paranoia in that those who disagree with you do so because of who you are rather than what you say. You may hold yourself in that high of esteem, but not all others do---you could greatly advance yourself by understanding that. The problem is not your baseball content, it is your cheapshot inuendos and condescending mannerisms. Not all accept the gospel of St. Carl (although some regular apostles may). It is not to say that those who disagree with you are right, but merely their opinions differ and they are seeking your additional knowledge OF BASEBALL to cause them to change. You may or may not be willing or able to provide that---and they may or may not change their opinion due to your beliefs.

<b><u>You</u> write and publish an article</b> about not calling a balk on F1 for specifically violating a pitching rule because his INTENT was not to deceive the runner. Yet, you have the audicity to admonish those who don't carry a book on the field implying their inconsistency in their following of the general guidelines of umpiring. <u>You</u> reference the "Gas House Gang" as those against you and admonish them as they make corrections in their calls "for the good of the game" (and in accordance with the general guidelines). Don't look in the mirror, you might be shocked at what you find, <b>Bubba</b> !!!

Then, you continue to tell us not to follow the general guidelines in the rulebook that specifically refute your position because they are outdated by an admittedly unofficial writing. Let's remember, they are still in the book---yours are not !!! Use your magic powers to get yours in the book and to get out that which rulemakers agreed to put in. Until then, I will accept that which is in the book over that which is not. <b>Those guidelines support the intent and purpose of umpires</b>---which is to attempt to get the call right---that's why umpires are even part of the game. Your position supports your attitude of infallibility (not surprisingly).

Again, you are preaching to those primarily officiating amateur ball the findings of professional officiating knowing and agreeing in past there are differences that must apply. Stick with one or the other in your arguments within threads and boards. Please quit accepting and preaching whichever position best supports your specific argument at the time.

I couldn't help but summarize the point you tried to make to forget the general guidelines. I can only remind you of the following (perhaps paraphrased):

<b>Rule 1---All animals will walk on 4 legs---<i>except the pigs.</i></b>

If you are going to change it, please use your "connections" to get it done properly. Even Snowball and Napoleon knew they needed to at least get it in print withn the rules rather than expecting the animals to accept their dictates. Go at it, <b>Bubba</b>.

As for change itself, I can't put words in your mouth, but when you post that the book is wrong and that JEA is right, then it is obvious change (at least of the book) should occur if only for correction sake. Change for the sake of change is not prevalent here and has never been an issue, although some like to grasp that wording. Those of the "Gas House Gang" whom you feel have a "hidden agenda" may merely disagree with you or, indeed, propose change. This is not Pleasantville, although some like to think so. I could suspect which side of the street you'd have been on when Jesus Christ proposed change many years ago---and no, it was not just for the sake of change then either.

Just my opinion----certainly not gospel as some might expect all to accept. In fact, I realize many may obect---but <u>at least I do realize</u> that. Just one of the Gas House Gang (as opposed to one who may just pass gas).

BTW, Columbus and I STILL believe the world is round. Good thing he discovered it despite those who felt it was flat.

Arrogance and accuracy
 

Bfair faults Carl Childress for his "arrogant statements". He also commented about Carl's book wherein he advocates about "...about not calling a balk on F1 for specifically violating a pitching rule because his INTENT was not to deceive the runner. Yet, you have the audicity to admonish those who don't carry a book on the field implying their inconsistency in their following of the general guidelines of umpiring." [Bfair's quotes as I screwed up the quote function here]

Webster's describes arrogance as "the assertion of one's own importance, together with contempt of others." It also uses "haughtiness" as a definition. Just like the umpire who said we don't know the abilities of an umpire merely by their submissions to these boards I would suggest that I can't call Carl "arrogant" without having have met him. But lets say I meet him and find him to be arrogant. What does that say about the accuracy of his comments? Too many Carl-haters focus on his style and seem to ignore his substance. I choose to do the opposite but I don't consider myself an apostle.

I read this again on page 14 of Carl's latest book or should I say booklet (51 Ways to Ruin sa Baseball Game). And I felt a whole lot better about the Mickey Mantle game a few years back where I didn't make that call where the picher switched from the windup to the set without properly disengaging... in the last inning of a one-run game with the bases loaded. (No one noticed the non-call).

I'll not try further to dissuade anyone from their negative opinion of the tone of Carl's messages. In fact some anger might be reasonable. I'm also not selling his book which sounds a lot like the best of all his posts. But I can and do learn from what Carl "preaches". In making sure you don't hinder the catcher Carl states in going after foul balls catchers "..typically turn to their right because they are right-handed." Now I knew that instinctively but not concretely. You could have situations like I do where 95% of your games are played with an overhang from the backstop so few catcher chase foul pops behind the plate but Carl's advise may help especially at tournament time when we're on that field with the backstop 150 feet behind the plate. Jim/NY

The Emperor's (lack of) attire
 

I'm sure that many more "subject's eyes" were opened by that diatribe.

The Emperor obviously has NO idea what the original thread was all about..or what was the purpose of the discussion. Once the Emperor announces his OPINION, mistakenly considered by he and his minions as STONE CARVED BY GOD FACTS.. then all those who differ fall into some category reserved for sludge.

You know.. I was going to stop here.. but, jury members.. lets take a closer look!

I ACCEPT that the Emperor owns a warehouse of information and professional acceptable interpretation. For years, he has aided and guided the amateur umpire community.

But look at the current discussion of the comments to umpires. Some, myself, DH, others, have asserted that they simply indicate LEGALITY..(meaning not protestable). If the Emperor has official information that says that the comments DO NOT APPLY, then he could share that with us.. and learning would progress.

BUT NOOOOO.... The Emperor has to BEGIN his diatribe name calling, negative classification, etc. HE couldn't just state what he knows... try, "Well, Dave, I have some comments from Jim Evans that say this and that".

Things are very clear now, aren't they?

This post will of coure be DELETED because of the word, "Emperor". But Jeff.. you GOTTA ADMIT... it is funny!!

Huh?
 

Bfair and Moose,

I don't know what got you guys all fired up.

"Gas House Gang," was the name given to the 1930's St. Louis Cardinals, for their fiery, spirited, and fun-loving style. Perhaps you took this label as an insult. I found it to be a testimony to your commitment to this topic. I don't see the name-calling or negative classification reported by Moose, nor do I understand the reaction of Bfair. Did you guys misunderstand?

By the way, the Gas House Gang is also a world-reknown barbershop quartet. You guys do seem to be in harmony on this issue, and there seems to be a quartet, so is it such a stretch?

The General Instructions, like much of the OBR, is in desperate need of a rewrite. Jim Evans points this out. In fact, every instructor I've ever known has pointed this out.

This is not limited to the professional baseball world, either. The amateur baseball umpiring world also ignores the General Instructions. It is because we have progressed our training methods, and mechanics, beyond the experience of the rulesmakers at the time those instructions were written.

What Carl said here is not new. It's not a stretch. It's not simply arguments to support a position. It is good, solid, umpiring advice. You'd be well advised to read and learn.

I for one will be glad when we can get on the field and do our job. I never wanted to be a lawyer, so I don't engage in the "debates" that I read here - I just read them. Occasionally, I add a thought from my point of view. No insults, no name-calling, no "I'm right and you're wrong". Ours is an inexact science. The more information we can gather from books, camps, interps, umpires, and history, the better we should be able to do our job. As far as I'm concerned, very little of umpiring is set in stone. Mechanics are flexible - so, based on training and experimentation, we find what works for us and try to perfect it. We all use different methods of enforcing many of the rules (get into the call, listen to a coach or argue, etc, etc, etc.). Of course, the rules for the most part are not very flexible. So I'll just stumble along, doing the best I can with what I've got, taking this whole board with a grain of salt...

Bet I'm called a dufus for calling these kind of threads silly -

Not from me.

Looking forward to seeing you at the GDS clinic in two weeks.

I am familiar with both of the popular associations of the phrase "Gas House Gang," and therefore thought nothing of the reference other than that it was a bit peculiar.

What I do have a problem with in Mr. Childress's and Mr. Willson's most recent responses, is their insistence on muddying the waters of reasoned and respectful discourse with unnecessary and unpleasant <i>ad hominem</i> barbs.

Examples, first from a recent Warren Willson post:

> Moose support hits rock bottom...

> See, Dave, here is the problem with posters who arrive at a
> conclusion, <b>because it suits some ulterior motive</b>

> Dave, perhaps you are emotionally too close to this issue. Perhaps you
> have allowed your feelings for, or against, the personalities involved
> to cloud your judgement.

And, from Mr. Childress:

> We all know the <b>hidden agenda those umpires are following.</b>

> The arguments are nothing more than attempts to justify bad umpiring
> <b>because those defending [name not used on request] don't like the
> umpires who pointed out what ought to be have been done.</b> We read,
> then, for example, nonsense from an ordinarily good theoretician who
> will engage in the rankest contortions <b>simply because he's angry with
> those on the other side. </b>

A saying common in the lawyer business is "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, attack your opponent."

Ulterior motives, hidden agendas, oneupmanship, thinly veiled putdowns, etc. It just doesn't seem possible to have an honest disagreement around here. It's an attitude of give no quarter, take no prisoners, it ain't fun until blood's spilt, my way or the highway, and absolute refusal - no way, no how, not gonna happen - to simply agree to disagree.

If I dismissed Mr. Childress's arguments with:

<i>Everybody knows he's only on my case because he's mad at me for embarrassing him on McGriff's over the proper ruling on a runner hit by batted ball play.</i>

that would be wrong and unfair, another example of the <i>ad hominem</i> fallacy. I <b>don't</b> use that style of argument, and I have to say I'm getting a bit tired of it being used against me.

Frankly, fellas, if you're not going to address the substance of my arguments, then I think I like it better in your killfiles.

Hmmmmm,
 

Bfair again, as I read your posts I wonder if you really understand what issues we deal with.

I support, with no question, your right to critical judgment. I would just like to know that you UNDERSTAND issues before your fingers hit the keys.

No one has ever mistaken me for a Carl Childress fan (Alexander Pope) however, I do UNDERSTAND what he is trying to accomplish with his writings.

B, umpiring ain’t that tough. It is the combination of using a set of rules, a good dose of experience, and a heap of common sense to get through each game with your skin on.

Often I disagree with Carl’s positions (i.e. see F1 stepping off) but I take the time to review WHY they are written. Ya see B, Carl understands a side of umpiring that I find a mystery . . . the “politics of rules making.” Hell B, I thought it would be as simple as writing a letter to those “Wacky FEDS” (Carl hates that term) asking them to change something and it would happen. Nope, I got a letter explaining just how unimportant my single thought was.

B, rules CHANGE long before the get written into books. Hell I am old enough to tell you that when I worked basketball it was before there was a signal for “over-and-back” but officials made a signal anyway. It took YEARS before books actually showed the signal – but it was the approved method.

You attempt to make your post a personal attack on Carl and because of that is loses its power.

Like all things in life B there are two camps:

1) The call the game-by-the-rules-by-god type,
2) And those that understand that there is gray in all types of calls.

Carl’s word, although not gospel, is a lot more important to me than the naysayers.

Just My Opinion

> Like all things in life B there are two camps:
>
> 1) The call the game-by-the-rules-by-god type,
> 2) And those that understand that there is gray in all types of calls.

An astute observation, Tee, but I think Bfair's (and some others') problem is the perception that, depending on the issue under discussion, Carl, Warren, et. al. are as likely to be in Camp 1 as Camp 2.

> B, umpiring ain’t that tough. It is the combination of using a set of
> rules, a good dose of experience, and a heap of common sense to get
> through each game with your skin on.

An even more astute observation. As the pilots say, "any landing you walk away from is a good landing."

You're kidding, right?
 

Just so everyone is equally familiar with the term <i>ad hominem</i> I will define it for you:

"An <i>ad hominem</i> argument is a personal attack on an opponent rather than on the opponent's views. It often involves some statement incorporating prejudice along with the assumption that the reader shares the prejudice. Over-reliance on <i>ad hominem</i> arguments makes the writer come across as mean-spirited and desperate.</i>"

Source:
<i>Logical Fallacies</i>, adapted from <i>Crossfire: An Argument to Rhetoric and Reader</i> by Gary Goshgarian and Kathleen Krueger, Longman, 1997.

Who is being personally attacked by the first statement? Is there any prejudice implied in the statement? Or is it simply the expression of personal opinion about the state of the debate?

Has the second statement been taken out of its context to make it LOOK like a personal attack involving some prejudice? Would it have appeared any differently if Mr Hensley had posted the <b><i>entire</b></i> quote?

Is the third statement a personal attack or purely legitimate speculation about the possible reasons for a particular point of view? Was Dave actually accused of those things or was there only speculation as to their possible validity?

Mr Hensley likes to use the cut-and-paste technique to selectively quote those parts of his opponent's posts that tend to apparently support his position when taken out of their proper context. Now THAT is definitely an <i>ad hominem</i> argument, but that fact certainly doesn't make it WRONG!

So, if you are so dead against these devices, Dave, why do you persist in using them? Specifically, why did you use them HERE in this very post?

It is certainly possible to have an honest disagreement around here; just NOT with YOU! The "disagreement" is invariably in evidence, but where you are concerned in my opinion the "honesty" (sic) is almost invariably lacking!

So, Dave, tell me when was the last time that YOU addressed the substance of MY arguments? I made a couple of long and studied posts on the legality of Moose's actions in the thread that started this whole business, even quoting the OBR on the illegality of his course of action, and you came back with a quote from the General Instructions to Umpires to declare the actions were "legal". I then argued that you can't use a GENERAL instruction to refute a SPECIFIC rule. You ignored that argument. Carl posts here that the very General Instructions you relied on for your proclamation were no longer being followed in professional baseball for several reasons, including their age. Instead of dealing with the issues of that post, you resorted instead to an <i>ad hominem</i> attack on Carl and me.

What can I say, Dave? How about, "<i>Hello Pot, this is Kettle. Over</i>!"

Cheers,

Re: Pure Arrogance?!?
 

Steve, I have some questions for you:

1. How do you read things like "arrogant", "cheap shot innuendos", "condescending mannerisms" and an "attitude of infallibility" into a purely TEXT post?

2. When was the last time you vehemently disagreed with ANYONE in this forum, outside of the three people Carl mentions?

3. Why are you SO angry, when Carl's disagreement with the use of the General Instructions to Umpires made no mention of you either by name or by implication?

I also have some facts for you:

1. Whether the General Instructions to Umpires are physically "in the book" has never been at issue. The fact is that they are NOT a part of the <i>Official Baseball Rules</i>, which are codified and numbered from 1 to 10. In <i>that</i> sense they certainly are NOT "in the book".

2. The General Instructions may truly have "supported (sic) the intent and purpose of umpires" <u>when they were written</u>. They are <i>still</i>, in some respects, very laudible ideals. They are NOT, however, the expressed charter for umpires. That can only be found in Rule 9.00, including the specific rule that says that a decision on a judgement call is "final", thus making it illegal to get help <b>after</b> making such a decision unless specifically directed to do so by another equally specific rule. [OBR 9.02(a)]

3. The admonition to "get the call right" is only a <u>part</u> of ONE of the <u>many</u> duties and responsibilities of the umpire as outlined in OBR 9.01. The General Instructions, when written over 50 years ago, apparently supported the contemporary belief that it was the umpire's <i>most important</i> responsibility, that's true. The reference from Evans and a closer reading of OBR 9.01 would tend to disprove that belief, in the light of modern societal pressures and the response of professional officials to those pressures. Things do CHANGE in the space of 50 years, Bfair.

4. You said that "change for change's sake" has "never been an issue". That's not true. I suggest that you read again the post of Pete Booth on the subject AND your own response in another thread. Both simply asked "Why not change?" without apparently offering any great intrinsic benefit flowing from any proposed change. I said that, IMO, this amounted to "change for change's sake", and so it is clear that the subject certainly WAS "an issue" here in recent times. Failure to recall that is merely SELECTIVE MEMORY on your part. That is not to say that YOU believed you were <b><i>advocating</b></i> "change for change's sake", but that's another thread.

Steve, this was an emotion-charged, personally-motivated and very selectively-biased post which I sincerely hope you now regret. I know from our numerous off-line discussions that you have never forgiven Carl for his unkind characterisation of you in another forum. I suggest that you are letting that history discolor your view of ALL of Carl's posts.

As someone once said, "<i>it ain't paranoia if they're really after you!</i>" If Carl's post truly does exhibit some measure of paranoia, that wouldn't mean he isn't also right! It is only <b><i>delusional</b></i> paranoia that has no real basis in fact. Whatever else he may be, my personal experience and your own occasional admission to that effect is that people really DO attack Carl, and to a lesser extent Garth and myself, simply because of WHO he is and not because of WHAT he may actually have said. You have openly admitted that is the case in the past. Will you deny it now?

Cheers,

Can't we all just get along.............
 

First let me say I haven't thoroughly read all the posts regarding the original situation posed by BJ Moose. With that out of the way, I want everyone to think about why this board is really here. It's meant as a form of communication between umpires for the overall benefit of umpiring. It is not about how crafty your wit is or whether you are or are not attacking someone. It's crap like all the bickering I've seen that turns me off to message boards quickly. I was happy when I first joined eumpire to see factual discussions and not pi**ing contests. Well, it has reached the latter. So for the good of this board, I'd urge everyone to take a step back and forget whatever insults, attacks, or barbs you may have perpetrated or been a victim of and answer questions without extraneous comments. As Joe Friday always said "Just the facts, ma'am".

Lawrence

Re: Arrogance and accuracy
 

Ah, Jim Simms aka Jim/NY, an emminently reasonable attitude for a text-based medium such as this. Am I correct in my recollection that you once posted the following on another board?

"<i>When I stopped expecting Carl to be a sensitivity trainer, I realised how much I could learn from him.</i>"

If so, I must say that you remain as sensible and practical as ever. Well done, mate.

Cheers,

Re: Can't we all just get along.............
 

I want to discuss three concerns. First, let me give you a little history. Second, let me explain for you four areas of intense disagreement. Finally, let me pledge to improve this Board.

This all began a couple of years ago in an obscure newsgroup called rec.sport.officiating. I dropped in, mentioned someone had directed me to the place, and everyone welcomed me. "Gosh, it's the famous Carl from the magazine." So I was asked questions, and I posted answers. I didn't always give citations; I assumed (bad idea) that most would accept what I said as accurate. I'm not talking about opinion; I'm talking about a rule. There were (are) a couple of "big men on the little pond" there who simply went postal. I replied in kind. That was the beginning of the "bullying" charge, the "condescension" charge, the “arrogant” charge.

For over a quarter of a century I had been giving speeches and clinics all over the United States and writing articles and books; I had published the BRD. I received (and still do) phone calls from various parts of the world to give my "ruling" on various knotty problems. I was simply unaccustomed to the attack of two men who were essentially amateurs who mostly call kids who don't shave. They accepted nothing I said as accurate.

Well, I couldn't have achieved the success I had without being right <b>some</b> of the time. Now here's the funny part (and anyone can look up the archives): I would find myself belittled by a man who never posted his own rationale, I would reply in kind, and <b>I</b> would be the one at fault. Lawrence, you cannot imagine the culture shock I underwent in two months at that place at the hands of those two and a very small coterie of their sycophants.

So I put together a group of officials, many of whom disagreed often with my positions, and called it UmpireTalk. Three of the five people in this Forum who generally attack either me or my positions were members of that group at one time. A fourth asked at least five times to be accepted. The fifth is new to the Internet and has never applied.

During the next months UT, as it was called, grew to nearly 100 members and included almost all of the prolific Internet posters on baseball. The debate was spirited, sometimes profane; the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune went back and forth on many issues. There were no parties, however. Warren Willson and I slugged it out, metaphorically speaking, several times. Warren can be almost as pig-headed as I can. Garth Benham on many occasions told me I ought to .... Well, he told me!

The breakup of the original UT started with an argument about ethics. Should an umpire call by the rules, or should he call the way his assignor wanted him to. (Does that sound familiar?) After constant attack by one member of the community I founded, and after he ignored several warnings, I simply dumped him. He has admitted on McGriff's that he consistently escalated the venomous nature of his personal attack, just to see how much I could take, how far he could go.

What I'm saying, Lawrence, is that you are listening to a continuation of animosity that goes back even before the creation of the Forum.

I have complained several times about a small group of posters who always disagree with my positions. <b>Always!</b> Can I be that wrong? <b>Always?</b>

I think not. But here's what happens. I post, and let's say an umpire from the "opposition" (how about the one who got all upset because he thought I denigrated all Little League umpires) agrees with my position. Not a word from him. Well, others at the Board can't look at a thread and say: "Ah, ha, he finally agrees with Carl because he didn't call him out." But before long, I will post something else, and he will ride in on his white charger, come to save the day and protect all those umpires who just call the kids who sleep with teddy bears.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not sugarcoat my "opinion," suggestions, "rulings," reports, or ideas. I am at the computer perhaps 10 hours a day. I have multiple responsibilities to Right Sports and to eTeamz. I have clinics to prepare and books to write. I deal with perhaps 100 emails each day. I simply cannot take time to walk through an answer to a rules problem -- again and again. I am asked my “opinion”; I give it, and the one who asked suddenly decides my “opinion” is foolish. Why ask, then?

Here's a flash: If I say the rule is thus-and-so, the odds are very strong in my favor that the rule <b>is</b> thus-and-so. There are some on the Internet who simply cannot accept that as true, and won't accept that I have a right to assert it. Lawrence, history proves I am right far more often than I am wrong, and there are those who just grow green and red when they hear me make that statement.

So be it!

You are a careful observer, and so I'm sure you have noted that my writings grow out a consistent philosophy, one that hasn't changed in many, many years. I am loud, many times obnoxious; I am never guilty of false pride (I'm good, and I know it!); I do not suffer fools gladly, for I'm 64 in April. (Shakespeare's birthday: I always took that as a good omen.) I do not mind the tendency of many on the Internet to wish harm to the messenger because they don't like the message. But the corollary angers me very much. I cannot abide those who dislike the message <b>simply because they despise the messenger</b>.

Second: The arguments I’ve had here and elsewhere are usually about four issues. Let me share with you and others who visit here my hope for the future of <i>umpires of amateur games</i> (© Bob Jenkins, 2000) based on my understanding of those issues.

1. It’s all the rage now to rail against the high school game played under the National Federation (FED) rules. FED bashing, led by a well-known San Francisco umpire who has not yet posted here, does not improve our lives as officials or the lives of the kids for whom we call. The Federation spends thousands of dollars each year to research rules issues; they <b>know</b> what their coaches and administrators like. The know what their <i>officials</i> like. Since I came onto the Internet, I have consistently supported the FED game and their right to set their rules, irrespective of the <i>Official Rules</i>. That has not gained me many friends. My feeling is simple: If you don’t like the FED rules, don’t call their game. But if you take their money, do it their way. You owe them loyalty. My hope: We have an evolving brotherhood of umpires dedicated to following the dictates of organizations they call for.

2. A second drag on umpires of amateur games is the undue influence of the failed graduates of PRO schools. First: Those schools do exactly what they set out to do. They are perfect for the umpires who call professional ball. Nobody does that better. But two principles that work for pros are disastrous for us: (a) the rat mentality; and (b) selfishness. PRO schools teach that the baseball diamond is filled with two groups: rats and umpires. That’s great when you’re dealing with Lou Piniella; it’s awful when your “adversary” is Coach Garza, whose son delivers your morning newspaper. Even worse is the lack of teamwork that grows out of “I’ll get my plays, by God, and you get yours.” Again and again I have jousted with those who just won’t ask for help or accept help from their partners. Moving up in professional ranks, the umpire quickly learns that evaluators look to see how an <i>individual</i> umpire performs. If you bail your partner out of trouble, <b>he</b> may get a better rating than you. We can’t afford that selfish approach. There are plenty of <b>legal</b> ways to work as a team. My hope: We can regain our associations from the PRO mentality.

3. Probably 75 percent of my most heated debates have concerned mechanics: who goes where, and when. How do we cover the outfield? Who goes to third? Where should I stand to see the plate? The current two-man system is very like the current OBR: It just growed. Over the years we added a whistle here, took off a bell there, brushed the nap, and swept off some of the muck. But there has never been an abiding force <b>behind</b> what we do on the diamond. Joe Brinkman admitted in his book, <i>The Umpire’s Manual</i>, that the PRO schools teach a system of mechanics <b>only</b> because that facilitates their evaluation of candidate umpires. When someone says, “That’s the way the PROs do it,” you now know <b>why</b> they do it. It has little to do with “calling good,” and everything to do with “looking good.” In contrast, I’ve spent a lifetime thinking about how to cover the diamond and testing my theories. I’ve been aided by hundreds of officials in my association and in other groups around the US. I know now there is a better way. I have the evidence to prove it. Yet the constant refrain is: “We can’t do that because our supervisor won’t like it“or We can’t do that because that’s not the way it’s done.” Almost everyone who debates with me admits they have never tried it my way. My system, known as <i>Mechanics for the 21st Century</i>, works because it has two principles behind every mechanic: (1) An umpire should be waiting at the base to make the call. (2) An umpire should position himself for the most likely play. My hope: We can objectively analyze what our duties as umpires are and shed our attachment to the past simply because of tradition.

4. The NCAA and FED have rule books that constantly evolve to meet the changing conditions of their games. The OBR changes its rules about as often as Billy Graham cusses. Thousands of associations, hundreds of UICs and rules interpreters: Where is the consistency? Aren’t we kidding ourselves? There is very little. Evidence? Read the posts on baseball. There is a better way. There are official interpretations available: The PBUC offers them through the manual of the NAPBL and the BRD. Failing an official ruling, the umpire can use authoritative opinion: Jim Evans, Chris Jaksa/Rick Roder, <i>Knotty Problems</i>, etc. Yet again and again there is resistance when I report that custom/usage dictate the play should be handled this way; that the minor league staff reported we should rule that way. One who constantly bemoans my opinions here argues that it’s flat wrong to use the PRO interpretations for the amateur game. He’s missed the boat. It’s wrong to use their <i>mechanics</i>, for they were developed for a different game. It’s right to use their <i>interpretations</i> because that insures consistency. If Carl follows one guideline, but Warren follows another, then nobody knows whom to follow.

Briefly, then, <b>my</b> side of the four issues is:<ol><li>Support the organization that hires you.</li><li>Resist the iconoclastic teaching that applies PRO philosophy to the amateur game.</li><li>Examine objectively new ideas about mechanics.</li><li>Accept willingly official interpretations and authoritative opinion.</li></ol>Lawrence: There are always two parties: in politics, in baseball, in life. We are, it seems, inevitably divided into liberals and conservatives. I count myself a liberal — proudly. I venerate the past, but I look forward to the future.

I contend that I have always had the best interest at heart for umpires of the amateur game. I want us to be better. There are cynics everywhere. They are, in fact, the Neo-Know-Nothings. Listen to the line they preach:<ol><li>Do as your assignor says or you won’t advance.</li><li>If enforcing that rule upsets the coaches, don’t enforce it.</li><li>How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real?</li><li>A system of mechanics isn’t necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand.</li><li>Umpiring ain’t that hard.</li><li>Who needs to know the rules?</li><li>The customer is always right.</li></ol>I’m sorry, Lawrence, but those are simply attitudes I cannot willingly accept. If those statements represent the future of umpires of amateur games, then I want no part of it.

After 2100 words, I have reached my third concern. I created an anonymous identify, called Eric Redfern, on McGriff’s. My idea was over a period of time to demonstrate that who we are sometimes gets needlessly in the way of what we say. I accidentally revealed that, and I received quite a bit of “bad press.” I pledged at that time I would never again post anonymously on that (or any) Board. I have kept that pledge.

Here, at the Forum provided by Right Sports, who also pay me for my books and articles, I pledge I will not engage in back-and-forth name-calling. I referred to a group as the Gas House Gang. Since one of the group took offense, I am sorry for that reference, and I apologize. Someone may argue that "Neo-Know-Nothings," which I attached to the same group of umpires, is also name-calling. Not so. Those steeped in history will recognize immediately that I have attached to them a name that reminds us of a certain era. Today, I have described their approach to issues; before, I simply described their methods and spirit.

But this, too, must be said:<ol><li>I do not apologize for my positions on the four issues I’ve outlined here.</li><li>I will vigorously defend them in debate against anyone.</li><li>I will continue to point out where the dissent seems attached to the messenger rather than the message.</li></ol>Rodney King (and now Lawrence Dorsey) bemoaned our fate: “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is simple: Because we are human beings, and human beings disagree. Your plea for civility is laudable but probably futile. Men of strong opinions disagree strongly. That’s the nature of dialectic. The two parties to this Board will continue their disputes, but as you say, hopefully over the issues.

I assure you I will be as nice about it as I can.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 10th, 2001 at 07:29 AM]

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 <b>questioning</b> 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 <b><u>chooses</u></b> 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 <u>booted</u>" 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 <b>all</b> 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 <b>it is <u>hypocrisy</u> for him to practice that which he ridicules</b>.

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, <b>Bubba</b>, 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

An interesting -- and revealing -- response. Now: Where do you stand on the four issues I outlined? Enough about me; you spent <b>your entire post attacking me</b>. You said nothing about baseball. Not one word. You have <b>proved</b> 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]

Carl Childress & Sensitivity
 

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

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 <b>is</b> 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 <i>ad hominem</i> 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 <b>are</b> adults, we <b>are</b> fellow umpires, and we <b>are</b>, 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, <b>even in disagreement.</b>

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.

Eric Redfern Gets No Sleep
 

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Can't we all just get along.............
 

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.

Good Umpires Work - Top Notch Umpires Work Better Games
 

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

Can We Get Back To Umpiring-a plea
 

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

Thanks for the memory....
 

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 <i>Make the Right Call</i>. I'm glad to be reminded that <b>that</b> 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 <b>really</b> 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:<ul><font color=yellow><b>QUOTE 1:</FONT></b> 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.</ul>Here now is part of the material from the National League instructions:<ul><font color=yellow><b>QUOTE 2:</FONT></b> 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.</ul>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:<ol><li>That the National League adds instructions for its umpires <b>proves</b> those "General Instructins" following the rules are out of date.</li><li>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.</li></ol>Finally: Allow me to correct a misconception. I did not retire <font size=5>TO</font> Edinburg. I retired <font size=5>IN</font> 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]

My final statement
 

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]

Well stated
 

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

And . . .
 

Umpiring STILL ain't that tough.

WOW! What a thread.

Re: Carl Childress & Sensitivity
 

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 <b><i>us</b></i> 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*

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,

Do ya mean it, huh, do ya?
 

Dave,

You want to be treated "<i>with courtesy and respect at all times, even in disagreement.</i>" 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 "<i>courtesy and respect at all times, even in disagreement</i>"?

I urge you to consider that for the very reasons that you expressed - namely good business sense and common decency - the pressure has <b><i>always</b></i> 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 <i>ad hominem</i> attacks in almost everything we post which disagrees with your viewpoint? Please, Dave, move on to finding <i>ad misericordiam</i> 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,

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).

<b>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 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.</b>

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---<B>MOST.</B> 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. <b>A definite problem exists !!</b> I don't feel wrong in accepting the book <u>until something is official and made so in print to the general public of umpiring community.</u>

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 <u>interpretation and application</u> 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,

Re: Ready to strart a new baseball season
 

No, you don't understand.The 7 statements I made are POSITIONS taken by people on the Internet, sometimes on this forum; sometimes, on others.

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.

Can't we all just get along...... for Carl, L.J. and Bfair
 

Carl,

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 <i><b>if</b></i> 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 <b>reputation</b>. 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 <i>this</i> 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 <i>A League Of Their Own</i>, "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 <i>really</i> 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,

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

Did anyone actually think this thread would stay open for much longer? :)

Please stick to discussing baseball umpiring guys - thanks!