A changed call at Texas - Page 2

Bfair · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 12:46am

Carl Childress (quoted):
Someone posted that surely those guys were "idiot umpires" who had called their last NCAA game, implying they were over-the-hill. I think just the reverse is true. Conference supervisors are looking for umpires who can handle explosive situations with dignity and aplomb.

Carl, I am uncertain as to the accuracy of indicating "someone" called them "idiot umpires". Can you provide that source of statement? As I can best recall, you may have taken a quote out of context.

Peter O. may be the author of the misquote that you mention. I tend to recall that Peter was referring, not to Jon Bible, but to umpires in a hypothetical situation that Peter had just described. It was a hypothetical situation whereby an umpire told an irate coach that another umpire was wrong. Both umpires insisted that they were 100% right, and a decision had to made as to which umpire's decision would be followed.

Peter appeared to be trying to make the point that 2 umpires cannot have "equal juridistiction" over a call. I believe a previous post on the board had referred to the effect of "equal jurisdiction" and Peter was merely refuting it.

This is one of the problems with board censorship. Due to the deletion of Peter's post (and those of others), you could not check his post before making your statement in order to insure that you were accurate. The rest of the readership cannot check the post either to see if it was a misquote (accidental or otherwise).

Just my opinion,

Carl Childress · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 01:20am

Quote:

Originally posted by Bfair
Carl Childress (quoted):
Someone posted that surely those guys were "idiot umpires" who had called their last NCAA game, implying they were over-the-hill. I think just the reverse is true. Conference supervisors are looking for umpires who can handle explosive situations with dignity and aplomb.

Carl, I am uncertain as to the accuracy of indicating "someone" called them "idiot umpires". Can you provide that source of statement? As I can best recall, you may have taken a quote out of context.

Once again, your memory, like that of the Orwell citations, is wrong. I chose not to announce who made the remarks about idiot umpires because Mr. Osborne and Mr. Bible belong to the same email community.

BTW: Here's Jon's comment:

Here's the relevant passage:

Warren Willson · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 01:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by Bfair
Peter appeared to be trying to make the point that 2 umpires cannot have "equal juridistiction" over a call. I believe a previous post on the board had referred to the effect of "equal jurisdiction" and Peter was merely refuting it.

This is one of the problems with board censorship. Due to the deletion of Peter's post (and those of others), you could not check his post before making your statement in order to insure that you were accurate. The rest of the readership cannot check the post either to see if it was a misquote (accidental or otherwise).

Just my opinion,

If that truly WAS the point that Peter "appeared to be trying to make", that "2 umpires cannot have equal jurisdiction over a call", then I suggest that he would have been quite wrong by any reading of OBR 9.04. Certainly his quoted claim in the above post, that if two umpires made different calls on the same play then in that case the PU's call should prevail because his was the primary responsibility, is just plain WRONG when OBR 9.04(c) is taken into account. According to that rule, the final decision belongs to the UIC who shall decide according to which umpire had the better view, not according to who had the primary responsibility.

I don't see the proper moderation of this restricted discussion board, in accordance with the guidelines that EVERY poster had to agree to when registering to post, as "censorship". If it really bothers you that posts get deleted, Steve, then may I suggest that you encourage every poster to leave personal criticisms out of their posts, including yourself. I, for my own part, am happy to promise NOT to intentionally post criticism on a personal level unless I am first addressed on that level. I can't Bfairer than that! (grin)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 12:51 AM]

Bfair · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 01:54am

Carl, I felt at a disadvantage as I did not have the post to work from. I could not locate it. Would you please advise where I may review the entire post? As originally stated, I was working from memory that this was a hypothetical situation.

I think that since the paragraph you refer to starts with:
"Now let us suppose...." , then everything immediately following would and should be considered hypothetical. Therefore, I find it improper to state that "someone" said these guys were "idiot umpires" as, indeed, this statement had been taken out of context and made as if to appear to be directly stated regarding Jon Bible and others of that crew. That is why I posted as I did. I did not feel your initial post reflected the truth of situation in which those words and labels had been used. I would hope upon review you would now agree.

Additionally, in my subsequent paragraph I indicated that Peter O.'s post was in response to a previous post suggesting "equal jurisdiction". As I don't have that post either, would you care to reprint it?

I hope to salvage what I saw as an attempt to degrade Mr. Osborne to those who may have seen the original post and knowing of his words yet not recalling the exact situation. Of course, Mr.Osborne does not have the ability to defend himself on this board.

Based on what I see, my memory appears accurate. It is likely far more difficult for me as I don't have access to the posts of the thread that disappeared. It appears you have access to them or may have done some quick copying before they disappeared.

Just my opinion,

Bfair · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 04:28am

The infamous list (previously posted by Carl Childress):

Let me go over the list one more time, individually. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. On the other hand, if you believe these five instances do represent calls that may be changed legally, stop denigrating the list!

1. Two umpire make opposite calls on the same play. I argue that one of those calls will be legally changed to match the other. Does anyone disagree?

2. The plate umpire calls "Ball, no he didn't go!" and the catcher asks him to get help. The appropriate base umpire may legally say, "Yes, he did." (9.02c CMT) Does anyone disagree?

3. An umpire misinterprets a rule, and another umpire corrects his error. (9.02b and c) Does anyone disagree?

4. A call of foul is changed to fair or a home run becomes a double (also vice versa). Fitzpatrick interpretation, common practice in the major leagues. Does anyone disagree that it occurs? Does anyone disagree that it is done legally?

5. A ball comes loose on a tag for an out, and another umpire sees it. (9.02c; JEA) Does anyone disagree?

If you believe there are other instances that can be legally changed, please post them and the authoritative opinion supporting that ruling.
__________________________________________________ _________
Carl Childress (quoted from this thread):
Childress from here on out.
One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted.
Since it was the right call properly arrived at, nobody was ejected. That kind of teamwork in the crew is what makes college ball so much fun.
__________________________________________________ ________

First and most importantly. Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play. That dog just don't hunt. It is ludicrous to try to sell it as anything different. Reviewing the play situation shows there were not opposing calls on the batter. Pure and simple.

Secondly, the coach came out to argue a judgement call. Whether or not a batter is hit is, indeed, a judgement call (Until you refute it) As you have argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls, yet alone have a judgement call reversed as a result of his argument

Thirdly, elsewhere in the thread it is referred to as "concurrent jurisdiction".
I will quote rule 9.04A(4):
The umpire-in-chief.....usually called the plate umpire....His duties shall be to make all decisions on the batter."

I will question the concurrent jurisdiction. Furthermore, I must question any authoritative opinion or official interpretation that states otherwise. No jurisdiction applies on this judgement call until such time as asked by UIC. Furthermore, application of authoritative opinion and official interpretation is for questions arising regarding areas not specifically defined in the rulebook. It provides opinion or interpretation on the "gray" areas left open by the rules. Now, read the above rule. What gray area needs opinion or interpretation? What don't you understand as to who the call belongs to regarding the hit batsman? Did he ask for help when the call was made? No. If we are going to legally change this phrase, it needs to be done by revision, not opinion or interpretation. I need somewhere to believe what I read in the book.

Now, do we as BU all help in these scenerios? Yes. Are we doing it in accordance with the rules? Let's wait for Carl's answer. He likely has it prepared already I am certain. Much of this info is from thread he may already have---just no one else.

In closing please note how the wording of the original list submitted changed from 2 umpires making opposing calls to the rephrasing of 2 umpires making concurrent decisions. We even had one decision referred to as "announced" as opposed to an "unannounced" decision in this thread. I am afraid of this explanation, who has jurisdiction in the future on the "unannounced" decisions, and how often as an umpire I need to make the check for the unannounced decision? BTW, does the mechanics book provide a signal for that decision?

I look forward to an explanation that refers to calls, not decisions. Otherwise, I will feel like one of the animals watching the words change on the list of rules in "Animal Farm".

BTW, if the words change, how can we trust the messenger to be certain he is delivering the correct words?

Just a thought and opinion,

ump24 · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 10:41am

To Bfair,

You state that you don't feel that two calls were made in this play. I suppose you are assuming that because Ford didn't make a verbal call.

Therefore, are we to assume that if a plate umpire doesn't say,"ball" it is not one? I don't think that you are thinking this through logically.

It appears as if you are simply trying to argue Carl down. Not a wise decision in this case. He is right.

Also, I would like to ask all of the nay sayers out there, how many of you have ever worked a Division 1 game? Beyond that, how many of you have ever worked one involving two teams that were both in the college world series last year? I have only had the priveledge of working for a team that has been in the CWS and to say the least the pressure is mountanous. This isn't some Little League scuffle over someone leaving the base early. Try to think about that before you make criticisms of these mens performance!!!

Jim Porter · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 12:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bfair
First and most importantly. Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play. That dog just don't hunt. It is ludicrous to try to sell it as anything different. Reviewing the play situation shows there were not opposing calls on the batter. Pure and simple.

Steve,

This is not ludicrous, and because you label as such, I'm not entirely sure you are thinking it through. I've listened to all sides of this issue before making up my mind, and I feel it is a good time to voice my opinion.

After the ensuing conferences, the 2BU admitted that he did see the batter struck by the ball. Even though retroactively, there indeed was conlicting calls made by two umpires.

The mistake that was made by 2BU was his failure to call the hit-by-pitch right away.

One of the valuable ways that Papa C. conveys information to us is to make statements such as the now-infamous list. Without giving us the answers outright, he pokes and prods us into finding the answers for ourselves. The list is broadly written, and leaves open the possibility for broad interpretation. That's valuable, in my opinion. It allows us to consider a situation, and figure out its relationship to the list.

Well, we've certainly found the relationship between this tough call at UT and the list. Now all you have to do is open up your mind just a little bit and let the sun shine in!

It can do nothing but help you learn.

Carl Childress · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bfair

Secondly, the coach came out to argue a judgement call. Whether or not a batter is hit is, indeed, a judgement call (Until you refute it) As you have argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls, yet alone have a judgement call reversed as a result of his argument.

One great difficulty in jousting with Freix is his inability to get his facts straight. Childress references Animal Farm. Proved wrong, so Freix says I've altered my posts. Childress misquoted Osborne about "idiot umpires" and so held him up to ridicule. Proved wrong: Freix revealed Osborne as the culprit, not me. Childress has "argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls...." Not so: That was Warren Willson's argument, not mine. That's 0 for 3.

Quote:

Thirdly, elsewhere in the thread it is referred to as "concurrent jurisdiction". I will quote rule 9.04A(4):
The umpire-in-chief.....usually called the plate umpire....His duties shall be to make all decisions on the batter." I will question the concurrent jurisdiction. Furthermore, I must question any authoritative opinion or official interpretation that states otherwise. No jurisdiction applies on this judgement call until such time as asked by UIC.

Despite the fact the game under discussion was played under NCAA rules, everyone seems bent on discussing OBR statutes. I supposed the JEA should be accepted then. Here's Jim Evans:

When a certain category of obvious errors exists, a partner is expected to move in and help rectify the mistake. These errors do not involve plays in which the umpires judgment is in question but rather the conditions under which the decision was made. [An example:] The batter squares to bunt the 1-1 pitch. The catcher rises and prepares to field the potential bunt. The ball is bunted, and it deflects off the batters foot while he is still in the batters box. The ball rolls toward the mound and the catcher fields it. The plate umpire points the ball Fair as the catcher is picking it up. RULING: The base umpire should immediately signal Time and kill the play. Even though the plate umpire has made a call, it is obvious to the base umpire that his partner was blocked out and could not see the entire play. The base umpire in this case has equal jurisdiction and is correct in overruling his partner and changing the call to Foul when it is obvious that the incorrect decision has been rendered. (9:15)

Quote:

In closing please note how the wording of the original list submitted changed from 2 umpires making opposing calls to the rephrasing of 2 umpires making concurrent decisions. We even had one decision referred to as "announced" as opposed to an "unannounced" decision in this thread. BTW, if the words change, how can we trust the messenger to be certain he is delivering the correct words?

The principle did not change. If one member of his audience cannot make proper inference from one statement of the principles, the good writer tries a second, or a third statement.

To wit:

A non-verbal call is still a decision by the umpire. Some decisions must be announced: "Yes, he went." Some decisions are not usually announced: The ball comes very close to the batter, he hits the dirt, and the umpire says: "Ball!" Implicit in that call is the non-announced decision: "Well, whatever you think, the pitch didn't hit him."

But the ultimate bit of tomfoolery is this statement:

Quote:

First and most importantly. Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play. That dog just don't hunt. It is ludicrous to try to sell it as anything different. Reviewing the play situation shows there were not opposing calls on the batter. Pure and simple.

Assume for a moment that Freix is correct here: Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play.

My first question is: How did Ontiveros get on first? Freix must say: "U2 ruled the ball hit him."

My second question is: When Ontiveros started to first the instant he ball nicked his heel, why didn't he continue? Freix must say: "???"

Ford made an unannounced call: "The ball didn't hit him." Then, he announced his call: "Come back to the plate."

Finally: What is the big deal? The purpose of my list was to help umpires identify those situations where they must or could change calls. The fact that I made that list should work in its favor with most umpires, as indeed it did. The difficulty as I have said repeatedly is that one group will turn cartwheels to avoid accepting any message when they don't like the messenger. This thread is a perfect example.

Jim Porter · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 02:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Despite the fact the game under discussion was played under NCAA rules, everyone seems bent on discussing OBR statutes.

Papa C.,

Any comments on how "the list" changes with NCAA, or how changed calls are somehow different in NCAA, would be most appreciated by me.

His High Holiness · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 02:46pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

One great difficulty in jousting with Freix is his inability to get his facts straight. Childress references Animal Farm. Proved wrong, so Freix says I've altered my posts. Childress misquoted Osborne about "idiot umpires" and so held him up to ridicule. Proved wrong:

Carl was privy to the following email that I sent to Jon Bible in an NCAA forum that the three of us participate in. I know that he has read it because he responded to it. Carl made the assertion on NCTalk that "someone" had called Jon Bible and his crew "idiot umpires". I sent the following in response:

------------------
Jon;

I had originally ignored Carl's post (on NCTalk) because I felt that it was a deliberate attempt to get me involved in a flame war. Now that this has appeared in another forum and has been attributed to me, I felt that I needed to set the record straight.

As the result of a long back and forth discussion, Warren Willson was arguing that had you not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable. I was pointing out the absurdity of this
arguement and to demonstrate the absurdity, I posed a hypothetical situation that made the umpires out to be idiots. It was clear to me and to unbiased readers that I was not referring to you or your crew. One of those readers has even raised this exact issue with Mr Childress. The problem is that the forum in which this was raised has deleted the entire thread (and one or two other related threads) in which this issue came up. They said that they did this because the thread had become too heated with insults. Some of the particpants, however, feel it was because one of their top stars, Warren Willson, was taking a beating.

Whatever the reason, except for Carl, I know of no one who has access to the whole series of threads. Carl has released bits and pieces of the thread to try to prove his point on eumpire that I disparaged you. He has not released the whole thread. (He might not have it although he seems to have the pieces that he needs.) For the record, I want to state that you made the best of a bad situation and I am sure that you will work many more NCAA games. I would like to also say that I hope that I could have done as well as you did given the same situation.

Your situation in Texas was like the coming together of the planets. On eumpire, we had a heated discussion ranging over two weeks about whether or not certain calls could be changed. I was on the "get it right" side and when I heard of your game, I immediately posted the synopsis of it by Mark Land. Since the other side could not denigrate the god of NCAA umpiring, Jon Bible, they went through linguistic gymnastics to explain why your crew really did not "change" a call. (For the record, Carl did not materially particpate in most of these threads as I recall.)

Warren Willson had originally argued that, with rare excptions (checked swing, etc.) to change a call could result in a protestable situation. When faced with your crews play, he argued that to not change the call would be
protestable. Actually he argued that no call was changed, since the PU technically made "no call". As I said, it was linguistic gymnastics.

I look forward to seeing you umpire many more World Series.

Peter

--------------------
Carl has read the above post and yet he continues to say that Bfair has misrepresented what I said. I would like to set the record straight and point out that Bfair has ACCURATELY reflected what I said with regards to Jon Bible. It is Carl that is deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is deliberate and with malice because he has had access to the email that I sent to Jon Bible since early this morning 2/23/01. He responded within an hour of its posting so I know that he read it prior to his post disparaging Bfair's integrity.

In addition, several posters have attributed Animal Farm references to me. I have never read Animal Farm, am ignorant of the plot, and have never quoted it. It is easy to blame all the words that no one wants to claim on the man whose posts have all been deleted. (insert big smile here)

Peter

Warren Willson · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 06:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by His High Holiness
As the result of a long back and forth discussion, Warren Willson was arguing that had you not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable. I was pointing out the absurdity of this
arguement and to demonstrate the absurdity, I posed a hypothetical situation that made the umpires out to be idiots.

---[snip]---

Warren Willson had originally argued that, with rare excptions (checked swing, etc.) to change a call could result in a protestable situation. When faced with your crews play, he argued that to not change the call would be
protestable. Actually he argued that no call was changed, since the PU technically made "no call". As I said, it was linguistic gymnastics.

Mr Osborne, you NEVER cease to amaze me with the degree of your prevarication and obfuscation. In this case you have MISREPRESENTED me and my position most rudely, since I am NOT a member of the forum in which you posted these assertions, and so am unable to refute them. You OWE me an apology for your misrepresentations there, and you owe that it be offered in a manner that ENSURES that Mr Bible and the members of that list clearly see that apology!

At no stage did I argue "had (they) not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable." To continue to claim otherwise is to once again infer in a public forum that I am a liar. I AM NOT. What I DID say was that the moment U2 declared he had seen the batter hit by the pitch, then we had a "protest situation". Indeed we do have a "protest situation". If the result of U2's admission is not at least discussed by the crew under OBR 9.04(c), and a final decision made by the UIC, that would be protestable. If the crew refused to discuss what U2 saw, the manager would be entitled to protest that the rules had been misapplied. THAT was the basis for my contention, and NOT as you wrongly claimed that a failure to send the batter to first would be protestable. You made a wrong assumption about my statement that we had a "protest situation". Not only were you WRONG in your assumption but you have also compounded that error by shamefully misrepresenting my position on the matter in a forum where you KNEW I had no redress!

Not satisfied with one misrepresentation there, you then proceeded to make a second! At no stage did I argue "that no call was changed, since the PU technically made 'no call'". This is just pure fantasy! In fact I explained specifically that PU's "no call" WAS a judgement decision. I also explained that U2's decision that the batter was hit was also a judgement decision even though not verbalised at the time. I said that meant we had TWO decisions by different umpires on the same play, and so the matter was properly handled under OBR 9.04(c). Can you explain how I could possibly argue that position IF I had first claimed that "no call was changed, since the PU technically made 'no call'"? Your assertion is absolute nonsense, and misleading in the extreme.

There can be no doubt, from this post, that you are a PREVARICATOR. If your misrepresentation of my position was also deliberate, then I suggest that further makes you a LIAR. You owe me an apology, Peter, and it had best be unequivocal. Your actions in this matter as they relate to me are disgraceful! If you have ANY vestigal sense of honour, or any remnant of a desire that your apparent dishonesty be expunged, then you MUST redress this situation and APOLOGISE, IMMEDIATELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY.

Carl Childress · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 09:03pm

Lets see the record straight via direct quotes and times:

The Texas play makes it to The Official Forum. Sometime on 2/21. The thread has been removed.

Osborne replies to Willson and makes this remark:

I send a request to Jon Bible for any comments he might make. I do not identify the source of the "idiot" remark. (8:24 pm on 2/21)

Jon replies at 10:02 pm on 2/21, in part saying:

I post the Mark Land piece, with his permission, from eteamz, in which I made this comment:

Steve Freix replies:

I post the entire context of Osbornes original comment. (12:20 am on 2/23)

Osborne writes Jon to say:

Summary:

Texas play occurs.
Discussion in The Forum.
Osborne calls the umpires idiots.
Thread is removed.
I repost the situation, with explanations from Jon. I repeat the idiot remark but do not attribute it to anyone by name. (Note also that I did not identify by name the second-base umpire.)
Freix identifies Osborne as the name-caller while questioning my honesty at posting accurately and in context.
I post the context.
Osborne tries to weasel out.
My mention of Osborne by name occurred once, when I posted the context of his remarks after his minion, Freix, accused me of inaccurate journalism.
I never identified Osborne as the source of the "NCAA idiots" remark to the email community.

All of the posts referenced here are available except the original post containing the "idiot" remark. I thoughtfully copied that for posterity, and I am glad I did.

Finally: I have no access to the Board other than my own posts, which the admin will cheerfully acknowledge if necessary.

Ump20 · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 09:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Lets see the record straight via direct quotes and times:
The Texas play makes it to The Official Forum. Sometime on 2/21. The thread has been removed.
Osborne replies to Willson and makes this remark:
What we have here are idiot umpires who have probably worked their last NCAA game. However, it is not protestable [sic]. (7:20 am on 2/21)
I send a request to Jon Bible for any comments he might make. I do not identify the source of the "idiot" remark. (8:24 pm on 2/21)
Jon replies at 10:02 pm on 2/21, in part saying:
I didn't realize that the UT situation had generated THAT much discussion. I have not gone to the websites but gather from your comments that quite a lot of talking has gone on. So we are now "idiot umpires" who worked our "last NCAA game"??
I post the Mark Land piece, with his permission, from eteamz, in which I made this comment:
Someone posted that surely those guys were idiot umpires who had called their last NCAA game, implying they were over-the-hill. I think just the reverse is true. Conference supervisors are looking for umpires who can handle explosive situations with dignity and aplomb. (10:44 pm on 2/21)
Steve Freix replies:
Carl, I am uncertain as to the accuracy of indicating "someone" called them "idiot umpires". Can you provide that source of statement? As I can best recall, you may have taken a quote out of context. Peter O. may be the author of the misquote that you mention. I tend to recall that Peter was referring, not to Jon Bible, but to umpires in a hypothetical situation that Peter had just described. (11:46 pm on 2/22)
I post the entire context of Osbornes original comment. (12:20 am on 2/23)
Osborne writes Jon to say:
I had originally ignored Carl's post because I felt that it was a deliberate attempt to get me involved in a flame war. Now that this has appeared in another forum and has been attributed to me..., implying I was the one who identified him as the name-caller. (7:13 am, 2/23)
Summary:
Texas play occurs.
Discussion in The Forum.
Osborne calls the umpires idiots.
Thread is removed.
I repost the situation, with explanations from Jon. I repeat the idiot remark but do not attribute it to anyone by name. (Note also that I did not identify by name the second-base umpire.)
Freix identifies Osborne as the name-caller while questioning my honesty at posting accurately and in context.
I post the context.
Osborne tries to weasel out.
My mention of Osborne by name occurred once, when I posted the context of his remarks after his minion, Freix, accused me of inaccurate journalism.
I never identified Osborne as the source of the "NCAA idiots" remark to the email community.

All of the posts referenced here are available except the original post containing the "idiot" remark. I thoughtfully copied that for posterity, and I am glad I did.

Finally: I have no access to the Board other than my own posts, which the admin will cheerfully acknowledge if necessary.

It seems to me that one of the real values that we have on this site is that someone such as Carl Childress can go to a Jon Bible and ask about a particular play. Most sports reporters don't have that kind of access, at least not with MLB umpires. I certainly recall a thread in which a poster referred to this NCAA crew as "idiots".

What I don't understand is why would this be important to mention to Jon Bible, especially if he does not frequent this Board and likely wouldn't have seen the silly reference? Why not say "Jon, there has been a lot of discussion on e-umpire about that play where there was so much delay until U-2 finally made a call--what can we learn from your experience."? JIM/NY

Carl Childress · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 23, 2001, 09:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Ump20
What I don't understand is why would this be important to mention to Jon Bible, especially if he does not frequent this Board and likely wouldn't have seen the silly reference? Why not say "Jon, there has been a lot of discussion on e-umpire about that play where there was so much delay until U-2 finally made a call--what can we learn from your experience."? JIM/NY

I simply sent a copy of a Forum post through the regular channels of my email community. If someone calls Bush an idiot, a reporter is amiss if, when asking for a response, he doesn't mention that. Most reporters would gleefully and cheerfully identify the source. Based on Osborne's behavior toward me over the past year, I would think few would censure me if I had.

Instead, I preserved his anonymity. Where's the blame here?

Tim C · #15 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 24, 2001, 12:37am

all too funny for words.

You all need a dose of reality.

YOU ain't THAT important.

Any of youse.

heheheheheh