General Instructions: Generally Ignored

[Carl Childress]

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 all 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: The General Instructions are not a part of the rules of baseball. 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:

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)

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:

1. Anytime an umpire suspects a misinterpretation of a rule by one of his partners, "Time" should be called and the interpretation and enforcement discussed.
2. Assistance is not requested except when the responsible umpire is "blocked out" from seeing all the elements of a play or he has substantial reason to believe that his positioning did not afford him the proper position to render an accurate call. Request for help should be minimized as it destroys the credibility of the umpire and negates the effectiveness of the multiple umpire system.
3. Umpires should always confer before accepting a protest.

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 before 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:

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.

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.

[Bfair]

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.

You write and publish an article 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. You 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, Bubba !!!

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. Those guidelines support the intent and purpose of umpires---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):

Rule 1---All animals will walk on 4 legs---except the pigs.

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, Bubba.

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 at least I do realize 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.

[Ump20]

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

[BJ Moose]

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!!

[Jim Porter]

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.

[JJ]

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 -

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by JJ
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.

[Dave Hensley]

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 ad hominem 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, because it suits some ulterior motive

> 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 hidden agenda those umpires are following.

> 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.

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:

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.

that would be wrong and unfair, another example of the ad hominem fallacy. I don't 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.

[Tim C]

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

[Dave Hensley]

> 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."

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
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 ad hominem barbs.

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

"An ad hominem 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 ad hominem arguments makes the writer come across as mean-spirited and desperate."

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

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, because it suits some ulterior motive

> 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.

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 entire 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 ad hominem argument, but that fact certainly doesn't make it WRONG!

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.

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!

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

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 ad hominem attack on Carl and me.

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

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
Truly atop the most arrogant statements you have posted in my short duration on the boards (5 months).

--- [snip] ---

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).

--- [snip] ---

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. Those guidelines support the intent and purpose of umpires---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).


--- [snip] ---

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.

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 Official Baseball Rules, which are codified and numbered from 1 to 10. In that sense they certainly are NOT "in the book".

2. The General Instructions may truly have "supported (sic) the intent and purpose of umpires" when they were written. They are still, 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 after 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 part of ONE of the many 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 most important 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 advocating "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, "it ain't paranoia if they're really after you!" If Carl's post truly does exhibit some measure of paranoia, that wouldn't mean he isn't also right! It is only delusional 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,

[L.G. Dorsey]

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

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
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.

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?

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

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

Cheers,

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by L.G. Dorsey
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

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 some 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 I 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. Always! Can I be that wrong? Always?

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 is 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 simply because they despise the messenger.

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 umpires of amateur games (© 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 know what their coaches and administrators like. The know what their officials like. Since I came onto the Internet, I have consistently supported the FED game and their right to set their rules, irrespective of the Official Rules. 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 individual umpire performs. If you bail your partner out of trouble, he may get a better rating than you. We can’t afford that selfish approach. There are plenty of legal 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 behind what we do on the diamond. Joe Brinkman admitted in his book, The Umpire’s Manual, that the PRO schools teach a system of mechanics only because that facilitates their evaluation of candidate umpires. When someone says, “That’s the way the PROs do it,” you now know why 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 Mechanics for the 21st Century, 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, Knotty Problems, 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 mechanics, for they were developed for a different game. It’s right to use their interpretations because that insures consistency. If Carl follows one guideline, but Warren follows another, then nobody knows whom to follow.

Briefly, then, my side of the four issues is:

1. Support the organization that hires you.
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.

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:

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.

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:

1. I do not apologize for my positions on the four issues I’ve outlined here.
2. I will vigorously defend them in debate against anyone.
3. I will continue to point out where the dissent seems attached to the messenger rather than the message.

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]