A changed call at Texas

[Ump20]

[/QUOTE]

First, the difference between EWS and the rest of us is that we leave our opinions outside the gate when we step onto the field. I may feel that we should "get it right at all costs," but I won't compromise my philosophy with the illegality of changing a call. And who are we to argue what is legal and what is not? If Carl says that "such and such" is an official ruling, I'd bet money he's right. The man is a distinguished author of many articles and books related to umpiring, so why would he tarnish his reputation by stating something he knows to be false? Until any of us can boast a resume like Carl's, we better take what he says as gospel and move on... Dennis [/QUOTE]

Dennis,

I cannot speak for Carl but I would suspect that is the last thing he would want. Most know that by profession Carl spent many years as a teacher. I think he sees himself in that same light as an "umpire mentor". The last thing a good teacher wants is for you to accept what they say just because of their credentials. I think what Carl, Warren and others get upset about is when their theories, rulings, or opinions are dismissed outright or challenged merely because of who presented them. Carl's posts are the first ones I read on any Board and I would not oppose them without "doing my homework". Jim Simms/NYC

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Ump20
Dennis,

I cannot speak for Carl but I would suspect that is the last thing he would want. Most know that by profession Carl spent many years as a teacher. I think he sees himself in that same light as an "umpire mentor". The last thing a good teacher wants is for you to accept what they say just because of their credentials. I think what Carl, Warren and others get upset about is when their theories, rulings, or opinions are dismissed outright or challenged merely because of who presented them. Carl's posts are the first ones I read on any Board and I would not oppose them without "doing my homework". Jim Simms/NYC [/B]

Well, I didn't mean for that statement to sound so severe, but it seems that some people won't accept official interpretations unless they come out in print from an offical source. Carl has relayed a number of "official" rulings that he has received via phone call or e-mail, yet some people choose not to accept these as "official". Carl does distinguish between official interpretations, authoritative opinions, and his own suggestions (at least he does in the BRD). I doubt he'd want every umpire to live and breathe as he does, but I assume he'd at least want everyone to accept and enforce offical rulings, even if it contradicts what's in OBR or what they feel the rule should be. It's OK to formulate opinions, just don't do it on someone else's time when on the field.

Dennis

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Ump20
I guess you are right about Carl referring to Mr. Bible as a Neo-RomanticI simply do not recall it being linked to this play. Quite frankly I gloss over the verbal barrages launched to and fro by staff writers and EWS. Jim Simms/NYC

I can verify that Carl did indeed call Jon Bible a neo-romantic in this thread. And you know what? They remain respected colleagues.

Carl has called me a neo-romantic on more than one occasion. Carl and I also remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.

Sometimes, folks, a label is not insulting, nor is it intended to be. I can remember the fervor created by Carl's labeling a group who opposed him as, "The Gas House Gang." The targets of this label were incensed at the name-calling - - until they found out what it meant, and that it wasn't an insult at all!

Do yourself a favor. If you see a word you don't understand, look it up. You may save yourself some grief.

This coming from a proud neo-romantic.

[GarthB]

JimP opined:

I can verify that Carl did indeed call Jon Bible a neo-romantic in this thread. And you know what? They remain respected colleagues.

Carl has called me a neo-romantic on more than one occasion. Carl and I also remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.

Then there are those of us who firmly believe the "romantic" era has not yet ended. No need to use the pre-fix "neo" with us.

GB

[Bfair]

Jim Porter (quoted):
Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.

Sometimes, folks, a label is not insulting, nor is it intended to be.

However, Jim, sometimes it is insulting especially when one provides his own interpretation of what he means by it (as Childress has). It should be taken as meant to be insulting when the words say just that. If he doesn't mean it, he shouldn't publish it in a public forum !!!

Childress (quoted):

Jon Bible continues to be one of the Neo-Romantics....

...The neo-romantics are lost in a dream world, a fantasy where they believe the adversaries respect right, truth, justice, and the American way. Santa Claus, Cinderella, The Never-Ending Story: "The kids deserve the right call, and I’m gonna give it to them.”
__________________________________________________ _______
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DDonnelly19

First, the difference between EWS and the rest of us is that we leave our opinions outside the gate when we step onto the field. I may feel that we should "get it right at all costs," but I won't compromise my philosophy with the illegality of changing a call. And who are we to argue what is legal and what is not? If Carl says that "such and such" is an official ruling, I'd bet money he's right.......

.......Until any of us can boast a resume like Carl's, we better take what he says as gospel and move on.

No one has stated a need to get it right "at all costs" Furthermore, I don't feel I compromise my philosophy with the "illegality of changing a call". I have right to and will question Childress "opinion" when it overrides the rulebook. I choose whether to accept his opinion, and I will question his means and methods of delivery of such unofficial "official interpretations".

...I'm having a difficult time accepting the EWS rationale for the legality (or illegality) of the Texas and Moose plays. You claim that Moose's changed call was legal since Moose received more information from his partner after the play, and then changed his call based on that information.


Dennis, I see little difference in Moose's call and the Texas call. Both used poor mechanics but ultimately put "getting the play right" over the "need to protect their dignity (ego)".

...Carl has given his reasons why the two situations are different (sole vs. concurrent jurisdiction), and I would assume that if there were concurrent jurisdiction on Moose's play, we could make the same justifucation for changing the call. So what's the EWS's stance on this?

My opinion, not that of EWS, is that it is ludicrous to try to claim there were two calls on this play. Childress now states, then, that it is okay due to "concurrent jurisdiction". Where was this in the original List of 5 Changeable Calls. Why was not this 6th reason part of the original list if it is now okay to change the call per this reason? I must question the accuracy of the messenger no different than if I were told we received The Ten Commandments from Moses but he needs to add an 11th Commandment!!! Something is wrong here !! How accurate is the original information we are receiveing? Is something changing merely to justify a point of view? Is not that what occurred in Orwelle's "Animal Farm"?

What I see:
---Passing judgement upon Moose improperly
---Hensley justifying Moose's action through the rulebook
---Childress post "no,wrong", take my opinion, not the rulebook---live with the List of 5.
---Infamous Texas / Stanford play occurs
---eUmpire editors trying looking at the Texas play and attempting to justify the outcome by the List of 5.
---Childress saying to Freix, I am talking NCAA not OBR
---Childress uses OBR to qualify "concurrent jurisdiction" position
---postion taken "2 calls on same play"
---Freix states this is ludicrous, all can see only 1 call occurred. The other is merely opinion of U2 provided after coach has extensively complained.
---but "decision" and "call" are the same, PBUC says so in ruling, don't push the issue further and question it
---Freix question, "prove it", "show where I may find it"
---Sorry, not official PBUC ruling---we made mistake
---Freix and others keep saying "you can't put that square peg into that round hole"
---eUmpires editors keep trying to fit square peg into round hole
__________________________________________________ _
The reason Freix is so intent involve the issues here:
---The eUmpires editors and disparaging remarks made to Moose.
---The eUmpires editors saying take my opinion over the rulebook.
---The eUmpire editor(s) saying talk NCAA, not OBR and then use OBR to justify position.
---A List of 5 really needing to be, perhaps, a List of 6 (still wanting to know if this if "official"). But take this and all my other unofficial "official interpretations"
---An applicable "ruling" by PBUC requested to go unquestioned, which in fact, is found to be inapplicable when, indeed, questioned.

INCONSISTENCY amongst eUmpire editors in their position and methods. We do as we wish and say to justify what we desire. You however, are wrong in using the same methods or even questioning our methods.

Despite those who do not like the posts of Freix, he is consistent in his approach. That being, don't expect me to accept doctrine, provide me proof of why. Don't be afraid to question the "experts" whether they like it or not---make them provide legitimate answers. Highlight the insults and negative inuendo for all to see. Don't let others double-talk their way around the obvious.

Understand the game and the intent of the rules, and do my job to maintain fainess and balance by the rules and by the interpretations made available to me, the umpire.

Just my opinion, to those who may want it and to those who understandably don't

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 26th, 2001 at 03:48 PM]

[GarthB]

Childress (quoted):

...The neo-romantics are lost in a dream world, a fantasy where they believe the adversaries respect right, truth, justice, and the American way. Santa Claus, Cinderella, The Never-Ending Story: "The kids deserve the right call, and I’m gonna give it to them.”


That's an insult? Hell, that's Utopia.

GB

[Ump20]

Originally posted by John Klem

Well, Well, What have we here? The pot calling the kettle black, perhaps. For months, I have read dozens of messages by umpires endlessly promoting their clubs and titles; UT moderator, Rightsports staff, etc. These titles were used, not to inform us, but to set the royalty apart from the peasants....

I suggest, Mr. Porter that if you do not want to labeled regalistic, that you drop the ridiculous titles from your signature. Quit bragging about your club memberships. At present, you are like a man who signs his name "King James" but who wails and crys when he is not treated like one of the boys....

For the purposes of full disclosure, Mr. Moose told me today what EWS stands for. I am still laughing.

John,

It seemed to me that Jim Porter simply mentioned that he is with e-umpire and provided his e-mail address at Right Sports. I don't see where that equates to a "ridiculous title". It is my understanding that "EWS" is an imaginary club set up to poke fun at Carl, Warren and others. Hey at some time we all want to belong to a group but I would caution members of EWS not to use their "personal" opinions in speaking for the entire membership. By the way does EWS have a forum where we can visit that has a message board and advice written by long time college umpires? I also heard that EWS is looking for space while the clubhouse is undergoing renovations.

Another Peasant

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair
That being, don't expect me to accept doctrine, provide me proof of why. Don't be afraid to question the "experts" whether they like it or not---make them provide legitimate answers. Highlight the insults and negative inuendo for all to see. Don't let others double-talk their way around the obvious.

Understand the game and the intent of the rules, and do my job to maintain fainess and balance by the rules and by the interpretations made available to me, the umpire.[/B]

These interpretations are made available to you, thanks to the Internet, thanks to PBUC and the NAPBL, thanks to JEA, thanks to J/R, and thanks to Carl and the BRD. It seems that you pick and choose what interpretations work well for your philosophies. You attack Carl and his credibility, so why don't you shoot an e-mail off to Jim Evans and bash his credibility? I don't see Jim working any MLB games, yet you don't see anybody here attacking Evans.

I think it takes a bigger ego for someone to create a secret society, pick and choose what rules they wish to enforce, attack the credibility of authoritative sources, and ridicule others behind their backs all because one of their members blew a call in a game, and didn't like the feedback he was given. So when are you EWS guys going to swallow your pride and "do the right thing" by accepting "official" official interpretations?

Dennis

[BJ Moose]

from Porter (I think). It is at the very core of the EWS - an immature little clique of cry-babies whose presence on this board is for no other reason than to disrupt the conduct of business here.

That is kind of mean spirited..isn't it??

from Ump20? It is my understanding that "EWS" is an imaginary club set up to poke fun at Carl, Warren and others. Another Peasant

Not really true. Actually not true at all. The principles of EWS are long and wordy and might bore the occasional reader. We do reserve the right to make FUN of someone who does something really stupid, however. <-JOKE, GET IT!!

We simply point out when the Gods are Mortal. We simply point out when... "...he's wearing nothing at all!" It is an important task and we take our social responsibility quite seriously.

Mike Branch
Founder, Member
EWS

[GarthB]

Mike writes:
We do reserve the right to make FUN of someone who does something really stupid, however. <-JOKE, GET IT!!

Is it still a joke when you do it?

We simply point out when the Gods are Mortal.

You mean when the four of you THINK it is appropriate. Or do you claim some ability to know what every umpire is thinking?


We simply point out when... "...he's wearing nothing at all!"

Again, this would be in YOUR opinion.

It is an important task and we take our social responsibility quite seriously.


I take it you ASSUMED these responsibilities, or was there a mailing I missed?

Since the gang of four, otherwise known as the Emperor's Wardrobe Society, has assumed these responsibilities, to whom do they answer when THEY are mistaken?

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by GarthB
Since the gang of four, otherwise known as the Emperor's Wardrobe Society, has assumed these responsibilities, to whom do they answer when THEY are mistaken?

HEY.. Somebody is in BIG TROUBLE!!!

Who told you the secret meaning of EWS??

Jeez.. now we gotta get new decoder rings... Did you BLAB Stevey??

As to the question. When an EWS member is [M-word] they answer to the Great Forest Brainless Idiot, are forced to eat grubs, drink Olympia beer, and read the FED case book. Suffice to say, they are severely dealt with.

Mike Branch
aka The Great Brainless Idiot
Member, Founder
EWS

[Brad]

I think that five pages on this subject is probably more than enough

Thanks,
Brad