Sequal - "Son of McGriffths"

[PeteBooth]

This Board is becoming the "Son of" or "Return of" McGriffths. I do not think that was the intention when this Forum got started. It reminds me of when I was a kid on the street corner and we would have those "chopping" sessions to see who could out do the other. The only rule was we couldn't say anything about one's mother. You know the old adage No Mother's Man No Mothers

We are now seeing IMO The Main Problem with Internet Discussions. My gut tells me if we were altogether (at the Round table) having a few brewskies, the disucssions wouldn't be as heated.

The main problem seems to be in discussing interpretations of OBR and the way PRO Umpires are taught. If you check out Eteamz, Jim Booth recently E-Mailed Ralph Nelson who works for Sandy Alderson who is executive VP in charge of umpires. Below is one of the responses from Ralph which IMO sums everything up.

"In setting policies which are consistent with the rules, but altered from past practice turns into a big issue with the Players Association. I personally had no idea. I can't even imagine the fights we are going to have when we actually try to change or interpret a rule, even if it is just an effort to clean up inconsistencies between rules".

Hopefully we will all agree on this: Baseball at the profesional level is a "Horse of a Different Color" , yet we want to use PRO interpretations at the Amateur Level.
The last time I checked Amateur Leagues do not have a players union that as Hayes put it (in his response to Jim Booth) runs the asylum.

I believe that is why FED and NCAA came about. Papa C perhaps you can aid to this as to how FED / NCAA decided to have their own set of rules.

Personally, I take the "best of both worlds" when individuals respond to me. I do not agree with everyone 100% of the time. Sometimes I get my you know what kicked and sometimes I have a valid point. I have been known to say some off the wall things and have others wonder What Planet is he from , but that's what learning is all about.

Most of these 10 or 20 deep threads are about rebutals and eventually add little or nothing to the topic. If we want new or first year umpires to visit this site and engage in healthy discussions then fellow Blues - WE NEED INTERNET RULES (boy what a coincindence)

Her's just a few

1. Stick to the topic. If you do not agree that's ok but do not try and Jam your opinion down anothers throat
as this is counterproductive. Allow the reader to draw his / her own conclsuions as one would do in reading a newspaper or novel.

2. Maybe a segregation similiar to the URC is needed to discuss True PRO Ball vs. Amateur Ball The URC has a section for FED / NCAA and PRO. I am not saying this Forum has to have all that segregation but there are a vast majority of issues discussed here so perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea. Perhaps we could have 3 sections (A) - PRO Ball , (B) Amatuer ball and (C) general Discussion.

3. PROFESSIONALISM - A general decorum is needed, therefore, strict guidelines need to be established so that name calling etc. is not tolerated. I realize this is difficult because we have different idead as to what "name calling" is but something has to be done to encourage good professional dialogue.

Summary - Individuals shouldn't feel intimidated when visiting this site. We can all learn (I know I can) from EVERYONE'S contribution no matter how off base it might sound. When disagreeing with someone, stick to the facts. Also, on the flip side - People shouldn't take everything so personal or get "Bent out of shape"
over every little comment. Let's face it we all need some good humor (No Pun intended) once in a while.

Pete Booth

[Carl Childress]

Pete:

I'm sorry, but this business of "everyone has his own opinion and we can learn from that person" is true only minimally: We can learn that the person with a wrong opinion is wrong. In the meantime comments that are wrong and go unremarked stand around to confuse lurkers and passers-by.

Again and again we hear pleas that we should treat every answer the same.

Pete: That's a bad idea. It's like going to a high school science class and asking how they would treat trichiasis. Some of them may have a vague idea what the malady is; how many know what to do about it?

The problem is not that we aren't sitting around together; the problem is everybody with a keyboard and an ISP has suddenly become an expert.

[BJ Moose]

I, (insert name),
promise to be good.

Really!

[Tim C]

I agree whole heartedly with Carl.

We get a huge number of experts that have NO resume of proof.

If I accept "Jim from Saskatoon" as an authority without any thought he can lead me down a deep, dark, tunnel.

All answers ARE NOT EQUAL.

[Steve M]

I agree with Carl and Tee. Also, with any answer, shouldn't we be taking that answer back to the book to make sure that we understand the interp given and agree with it (or agree to support it). Some folks who post (Carl, Warren, Tee and several others) need much less verification than others. There are also those folks who you just ignore due to having found them inaccurate or foisting some other agenda. While no person is "worth" any more than another, the "opinions" of several people are worth a great deal more than others.