You want a real play...here

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I didn't mean for this to become a pissing contest, so I'll back off a bit. If I was overly judgmental, I apologize.

I do take significant issue (obviously) with the one statement you made repeatedly - Give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. If you truly simply call what you see, then there's no benefit of the doubt to be given. My issue is with the phrase being thrown about like an umpiring axiom, when there is no true reason (other than a desire to go home early) to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. But I'll leave it there.

Why did I "fire" that umpire? I worked with him once and noticed some "fishy" calls, and remarked on one or two in a polite way. A few games later I got a complaint from BOTH coaches after a game he worked alone (I was working alone elsewhere). While making allowances that it's a pain in the backside to work alone, we were stuck that night and had to make due. His version of making due, according to the coaches, was to call strikes from behind the mound, stay near the mound for all calls on the bases, and (again - according to both coaches) call every play possible an out, even ones that were safe by 2 steps. I wasn't there, so most of the judgement stuff I took with a grain of salt, but I did talk with him about calling from the mound and not moving.

I also decided to watch his next evening working. He had a partner, so worked one plate, one bases, and his mechanics were fine, but I saw several plays that bothered me. Some safe/out judgements, but some odd ones. Two plays for leaving early that weren't close - one of which where his back was to the runner. One for missing a base while he was not looking at that base. I discussed with him afterward, and his entire motivation was along the "I just want to get it over with" line. "Hey, I'm just out here to get outs." "If I don't call the close ones outs, I'll never get home." "I figured that if they were appealing, they saw something I didn't, so he must have done it" (referring to the leaving early and the missed base).

I told him it was not acceptable, and basically gave him the rant I gave you earlier. I put him on the field again, and had a buddy of mine watch specifically for these types of plays. I wasn't there so he didn't know he was being watched. Apparently the game went exactly the way the one above did.

I have no place on my fields for an umpire like that, when (normally) I have plenty of people asking for more games.

You've described an umpire's worst nightmare - an assignor who questions his on-the-field judgment calls from the stands, who gives more credence to COACHES' complaints about his judgment decisions than his own explanations, who is so didactic in his approach he doesn't understand the universal umpiring axiom (which is actually a point of emphasis in most training programs, including Little League's) that strikes and outs are a good thing, and that there most definitely IS a benefit of the doubt to be evaluated on many if not most judgment calls.

The worst thing you've described about this guy is some training deficiencies. Who was responsible for his training? Oh, you?

Carl Childress's "51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game," must read like a diary to you.


[Edited by Dave Hensley on Jan 19th, 2005 at 09:01 AM]

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

You've described an umpire's worst nightmare - an assignor who questions his on-the-field judgment calls from the stands, who gives more credence to COACHES' complaints about his judgment decisions than his own explanations, who is so didactic in his approach he doesn't understand the universal umpiring axiom (which is actually a point of emphasis in most training programs, including Little League's) that strikes and outs are a good thing, and that there most definitely IS a benefit of the doubt to be evaluated on many if not most judgment calls.

The worst thing you've described about this guy is some training deficiencies. Who was responsible for his training? Oh, you?

Carl Childress's "51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game," must read like a diary to you.


[Edited by Dave Hensley on Jan 19th, 2005 at 09:01 AM] [/B]

Dave: WHOA!!!

"I figured that if they were appealing, they saw something I didn't, so he must have done it" (referring to the leaving early and the missed base).

... is NOT a "training deficiency". Character defect is closer.

"Don't call what you don't see" is a very basic umpiring axiom, and taking correction from your assignor is basic good sense.

Admittedly, getting fired on 2 evals, only one with a post-game consult, is a bit harsh; but apparently mcrowder has the luxury of more willing and able officials than he needs.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
"I figured that if they were appealing, they saw something I didn't, so he must have done it" (referring to the leaving early and the missed base).

... is NOT a "training deficiency". Character defect is closer.

"Don't call what you don't see" is a very basic umpiring axiom, and taking correction from your assignor is basic good sense.

First, the phenomenon of being persuaded to uphold an appeal because (1) you didn't actually see the touch or miss, and (2) you reason since they appealed it, he must have missed it, is quite common among inexperienced umpires, when they're at their most pliable. It is easily correctable with the right feedback. "You're fired" is NOT the right feedback.

[gordon30307]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley
[B]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I didn't mean for this to become a pissing contest, so I'll back off a bit. If I was overly judgmental, I
apologize.



Not a problem I can take it.

I do take significant issue (obviously) with the one statement you made repeatedly - Give the benefit of the doubt to the defense.
[Edited by Dave Hensley on Jan 19th, 2005 at 09:01 AM]

We can agree to disagree on this point.

Wishing you luck. Hope you have a good season.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

First, the phenomenon of being persuaded to uphold an appeal because (1) you didn't actually see the touch or miss, and (2) you reason since they appealed it, he must have missed it, is quite common among inexperienced umpires, when they're at their most pliable. It is easily correctable with the right feedback. "You're fired" is NOT the right feedback.

We are not in substantial disagreement, as witness the last paragraph of my earlier post [which you snipped]. My comment was based on the totality of the comments/ reasoning attributed to the ump in question, which seem to me to reflect more his attitude and character than his level of training or "pliability".

That said, we also were not there, and did not see the level and quality of play the ump was having to cope with; alone, no less.

I once banged a kid out on a pick @ 1B; and when he asked me (politely, I am well known in this league) between innings how he was out on that play, I told him: "'Cause otherwise we'd still be playing that same half-inning tommorrow at this time". Even that teenager recognised the response as appropriate [and, unfortunately, accurate] under the circumstances. It is possible that mcrowder might not approve.

mcrowder, despite having at least 2 games requiring solo coverage, apparently shares with Sandy Alderson the luxury of having more competent and available umpires than he [usually] needs. He can, therefore, afford to be a real hard@$$ about doing it his way with a minimum of handholding feedback. Remember, he did evaluate and correct [OK, "rant" at] his ump, and nothing apparently changed at the next evaluation opportunity. Would I like him to assign my games? Probably not: but I've done the assigning job, and it's hard enough without getting complaints from BOTH coaches [usually a good sign that SOMEthing was wrong] about a guy with a crummy attitude who will not take correction.


[Edited by cbfoulds on Jan 19th, 2005 at 11:03 AM]

[mcrowder]

Wow.

First, I tried to make the email not too horribly long when describing the actions that transpired, and horribly failed.

Then I realize I probably didn't paint the picture of this guy very well when I described it here, if that is the response I got here.

I hope I'm not every umpire's worst nightmare. I'll have to consider that going forward. I think I'm pretty reasonable with my umpires, and work with them pretty well. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway...

I do work on the field as well, and work about as much as any of my other umpires. When I'm on the field, I'm an umpire, not an assignor or UIC, and I try not to even discuss assigning issues on the field. I back up my partner, even if I saw it differently from far away (and I know when to admit that he was closer to the play than I was when I do see things differently). I'm aware that we all make mistakes, and that I do as well.

And don't forget that my first inkling of a problem with this guy was when I was working with him.

I think anytime 1 coach calls to complain about an umpire, MOST of the time, it's just to grouse over a loss and misplace blame for the loss on someone other than himself. I don't place a lot of faith in a coach's opinion of a particular umpire --- it takes much more than one coach calling about an umpire to make me wonder if possibly they are right. I've even had the pleasure of taking the occasional phone call about how bad an umpire was that night, learning that the umpire in question was me.

However, when BOTH coaches complain, via separate phone calls, and the complaints are about generally the same thing - I think that does indicate a problem, at least with that particular game.

I'm confused that you seemed upset that I evaluated him from the stands. Other than working with him (at which point I really have more responsibilities to the game than just watching him), how would you prefer I evaluate him after what sounded like a legitimate set of complaints?

I could have lived with an explanation that he was having a bad night, he had sick kids at home he was worried about, or even that he didn't see things that way.

What bothered me most about the conversation was that he KNEW he'd made the wrong calls on some plays - not in retrospect, but when he made them; and he made the bad calls intentionally. Also, he made at least 2 calls he didn't even see, and didn't seem to see a problem with making such a call. Also, during the conversation, his attitude was very cavalier, almost like he was thinking, "Yeah, yeah, whatever - I'll say whatever I need to just to end this conversation, but have no intention of listening."

But even then - like you said, it was just one bad night. I honestly hoped that after we'd talked, he'd not intentionally make bad calls to get home early, and he'd only call what he saw. I also knew that if I showed up to watch - that would be the 1 game he called correctly (and he'd be nervous, knowing he was being watched, and that might cause him to have a bad game). My friend that I sent was a UIC elsewhere. I didn't even tell him why I wanted him to watch, or even which umpire I was concerned about. (Actually, I didn't even tell him I was concerned about one at all - I just asked him to show up and watch the umpires. It could have been because I wanted to show him how good an umpire was for all he knew.) But when he called, it was obvious to him, and he even made a similar comment, "Looked to me like this guy just wanted to get home."

If this guy had shown me any reason to keep him, I would have. He's been doing this a while, and even though I don't respect his ethics anymore, I do respect his rules knowledge. Like I said, though, most of my umpires complaints are that they don't get enough games as it is. Other than that 1 night where the two of us worked solo, I've not had much of a problem filling the field, and have even gone so far as to calling the league to ask if they minded if we worked with 3 umpires for certain games (getting permission (and pay) for this about half the time).