Declaring your fidelity to officiating baseball...

[Warren Willson]

It seems the original thread containing this was closed by the moderator as largely irrelevant to baseball officiating. I still think this particular question is a relevant baseball officiating issue, so I propose the unvarnished subject matter again here, and offer my response as the teaser for others to reply.

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.
   

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.

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 if they have put that "way" in writing for my personal protection (an Australian insurance issue that may not affect y'all).

2. Resist the iconoclastic teaching that applies Pro philosophy to the amateur game:

No question. The players, managers and coaches I deal with are volunteers and unlike me they don't get paid even in reimbursement of their expenses. I respect them for that. I treat them in accordance with that respect. They are NOT the "rats" referred to at pro schools in my book. Confrontation with them is NOT on my agenda when I walk onto the diamond. I am there to call the game in accordance with the principles outlined in OBR 9.01, not to saw them off at the knees every time they approach me. That more gentle philosophy is appropriate to the amateur game.

3. Examine objectively new ideas about mechanics:

All the time! I accept relatively few, and because of the structure of baseball in my country I can apply none of my own volition. That doesn't mean I cannot see the absolute sense or value in some of the proposed changes. I accept relatively few such ideas because they must show me proven advantages over the existing approved methods. "New" does not ipso facto equate with "good". There are, however, many "good" and "new" mechanics proposed from time to time.

4. Accept willingly official interpretations and authoritative opinion:

No matter what! I accept and approve the system that gives me official interpretations and authoritative opinion to help me know what is right and proper in the rules of the game I love. I couldn't be without these devices. Does this mean I blindly accept, much less willingly accept, individual interpretations that I perceive to be wrong, foolish or otherwise valueless? No, it doesn't but if I am required to apply those interpretations anyway then I most certainly will. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my way should prevail, even over the official sources and recognised authorities.

You also asked how people felt about the 7-headed hydra of philosophies outlined above. Here are my brief opinions on those philosophies.

1. Do as your assignor says or you won't advance:

The clear implication here is "even if what he says is wrong". I can't do that. If I have to sacrifice what I know is right to the politics of "go along to get along" then I'd rather not get along. It is criminal that apparently some assignors WILL inhibit the advancement of some officials from political rather than professional motivations. If we condone that by acquiescence, we are equally guilty. Our advancement may well have been at the expense of someone who deserved it more. That said, I don't often disagree with my assignor, so it is no trouble to do what he says. I certainly don't go against his wishes without the assurance of absolutely certainty that what he proposes runs counter to the wishes of my league and the ABF on the question.

2. If enforcing a rule upsets the coaches, don't enforce it:

Nuts! The Germans may not have understood that response in WWII, but I have no doubt most of the readers here will understand it! I don't work for the coaches and I don't work to PLEASE the coaches. I am the representative of the league and baseball and I take that charter seriously.

3. How do we know the interpretations Carl reports are real:

The clear implication is that Carl might report a false interpretation for some personal motive. Brazil NUTS! As an author and educator Carl Childress lives or dies by his reputation. Why on earth would such a person risk terminal damage to that reputation by deliberately misreporting an official interpretation? It doesn't make sense, and I prefer theories to at least make sense before I can espouse them.

4. A system of mechanics isn't necessary. Nobody cares where the umpires stand:

I don't know what idiot put this one forward, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the same idiot would be the first one on an umpire's case for getting a call wrong because he wasn't in the best position to make that call. Of course mechanics are important, no matter what the fans or participants might care to think about where we stand. It is the result they care about, and the best possible results cannot be regularly found without sound mechanics.

5. Umpiring ain't that hard:

There is much that I like about T Alan and his philosophies on life and baseball. He might be surprised to learn that. Unfortunately, while I understand the principle espoused here I certainly don't agree with this philosophy. It speaks to an attitude that near enough is good enough and good enough will always do. On the contrary, we should ALWAYS strive to improve, if even by the smallest of margins, wherever improvement is possible. As I have said elsewhere, umpiring like Life is a process of continual adjustment to the demands of our occupation. When you become complacent about making those adjustments I believe, as D.W. Hughes once suggested, you become a failure at that occupation. Failure at anything is not something I surrender to willingly. Tee, of course it's hard. To plagiarise Jimmy Dugan from A League Of Their Own, "It's the 'hard' that makes it great!"

6. Who needs to know the rules:

WE do guldarnit! I believe the COACHES do as well, but I am not their keeper. I also believe it couldn't hurt the players to know them too! Shoot, our jobs would be whole lot easier and certainly more pleasant if we didn't have to defend every decision against ignorance! Know your self and know your occupation (including its rules). There is NO OTHER WAY to success in ANY occupation.

7. The customer is always right:

Which customer? People who espouse this philosophy invariably, at least in my personal experience, don't know who the customer really is! Umpiring baseball is NOT a popularity contest. You don't have to dance and dress to please the judges! You have a higher responsibility to your league and to baseball, BOTH. When there is conflict one with the other, choose baseball and move on. We are the guardians of this great game on the diamond. Our role in it is not as the prostitute who sells her favour to the highest bidder. Despite what some believe, there is more to officiating the game than the money to be earned from exercising the power it confers. Some people will never see beyond the money. Fine. Just don't expect me to agree.

I believe that does it. Any other takers for this pledge of allegiance to officiating baseball?

Cheers,

[oregonblue]

Warren, I agree with your position and believe in fidelity to the game and its rules. Unfortunately, loyalty to one's assn. and the duty to err on the side of the integrity of the game are sometimes mutually exclusive. What then???

Is it presumptious to think that any of us has a responsibility to protect the purity of the game??? I used to think that the game I love was being prostituted, being turned into a whore, and that I, having put her on such a pedestal, had to defend her from all the mediocrity and expediency of the world. The game is bigger than any of us, and all of us...and will survive by maintaining contact with the old game, while absorbing the new. (I still don't think they play real baseball in the American League!)

I sometimes forget that to most folks, the baseball field is just a part of the real world, and not some insulated artificial environment where every thing that is done and said doesn't leave the field. And in a culture that views rules with distaste, sports officials (and baseball umpires in particular) will never get the respect they deserve.

JMO, Pat, Rogue Valley

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by oregonblue
Warren, I agree with your position and believe in fidelity to the game and its rules. Unfortunately, loyalty to one's assn. and the duty to err on the side of the integrity of the game are sometimes mutually exclusive. What then???

We ADJUST, Pat. That's what. It isn't that we succeed that matters as much as that we make the effort. I have never officiated under the constraints that many of you guys suffer because of your system of competitive contracts for associations. I just can't know what that is like. At some point, though, I'm sure we all simply weigh what is being asked against our conscience and make a decision. Carl has drawn his line somewhere east of the seven attitudes he abhors. You must have drawn your own line somewhere, otherwise you wouldn't feel compelled to even address these issues. It is true to say that you cannot change such a system from the outside. Perhaps you must choose the lesser of two evils. Or perhaps you can see another course to remove the conflict. What are YOU going to do about it? Only you can say for you.

Originally posted by oregonblue
Is it presumptious to think that any of us has a responsibility to protect the purity of the game??? I used to think that the game I love was being prostituted, being turned into a whore, and that I, having put her on such a pedestal, had to defend her from all the mediocrity and expediency of the world. The game is bigger than any of us, and all of us...and will survive by maintaining contact with the old game, while absorbing the new. (I still don't think they play real baseball in the American League!)

Of course the game is bigger than us as individuals. Of course it will survive, but only because of people who believe it is their responsibility to HELP the game maintain contact with its roots while it assimilates new ideas and attitudes. I lament even today that the PBUC is making interpretations that are patently "whorish" in their nature. That doesn't mean I don't understand the effort that body is making to protect and promote their version of the game. It's just that theirs is a necessarily selfish effort. I just wish it wasn't at the expense of the integrity of the rules and their original underlying intentions. No, I don't think it is "presumptuous" to think that any of us has a "responsibility to protect the purity of the game". On the contrary, that is precisely our charter as delivered by OBR 9.01(b) when we are on the diamond. Out there we ARE the representatives of baseball, and all it aspires to be! Even if the "girl" that baseball once was in your heart and mind grows old and wrinkled, love her just the same Pat. Her spirit will remain unchanged if you keep that "girl" alive in your heart.

Originally posted by oregonblue
I sometimes forget that to most folks, the baseball field is just a part of the real world, and not some insulated artificial environment where every thing that is done and said doesn't leave the field. And in a culture that views rules with distaste, sports officials (and baseball umpires in particular) will never get the respect they deserve.

JMO, Pat, Rogue Valley

Perhaps so, Pat. Like the Knights Templar, however, our charter doesn't come with a promise of a reward in this life. We are the guardians for future generations, too. Our contribution, however small, will be counted in the joy of those who have yet to discover the game and probably not in our own lifetimes. That makes it perhaps an even worthier effort, simply because the rewards are not ours to reap. It must be enough for now that we each know and respect the effort that another of us makes in that quest.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 12th, 2001 at 01:57 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
eAuthors stand steadfast in their defense of certain rules, applications and mechanics in which they believe mightily. Do they really expect less of the rest of us?

This will come as a great shock to Bob Jenkins and Rich Fronheiser.

This notion that we must all be pure of motive and process in order to be an umpire is what contributes to the shortage discussed in another thread.

I find that statement and the attitude it represents simply amaazing. If you are correct, you're perfectly willing to have Willie Sutton guard the money at your bank. Of course I want officials to be pure of heart, honest, steadfast, true. I expect no less of them than of my Cubscout grandson. Bad people make bad officials.

It reminds me of what happened in my hometown. Some of the residents of a local children's home went without Christmas presents last year. The reason? A $5000+ donation was rejected due to its source--a group of all-nude dancers who decided to donate their tips for a week.

How does the action of one group of fools in your hometown relate to my desire that umpires act according to the tenets of sportsmanship and honor they expect of those they judge? Old story: IRS calls the local Rabbi. "Joe Levine has listed a $100,000 contribution to your temple. Did he make that donation?" Rabbi: "Well, I certainly believe he will now." Do I fault the Rabbi? Not a bit. Do I fault the people who turned down legitimate charity? Certainly. Does either story relate to the improper conduct urged on umpires by some on the Internet? No.

[Rich]

I see my name posted by Carl above.

Carl, what do you mean?

I'm a bit slow today. Only on my second pot of coffee.

Rich