I personally disagree with the board's ruling. Not because the rules were not in place to make that decision, because this particular umpire could not make time to attend a camp. That is just being lazy and his excuse is not good enough. That being said, I would not have resigned over this issue. It is just one issue. You did not compromise you integrity to make this decision. You did not violate any ethics code to come to that decision. If the vote was that close it was clear that not everyone signed off on this decision. Maybe when this is discussed at a later date, you can make your opinion known and help change it. I would not retire and let this kind of issue go. I would work to work hard to make sure this kind of thing does not happen in the future.

Now that you have retired, you might not be in the same position to help change the rules for this kind of thing. Of course you can complain, but you have no vote. Or your vote is diminished by not sitting in a position of authority.

Sitting on boards or positions of authority myself, I do not agree with every single decision made with my organizations. But I can still have a bigger say sitting in those positions then not sitting in those positions.

Peace

Mr. Rutledge: I resigned only. I did not retire, and I'm still the rules interpreter.

I'm on my way out the door for a large-school showdown between two teams tied for first in the conference. I have the plate. I always have the plate.

I meant "resigned" from your position. Either way, I would not have quit from any position over this one issue. Especially when that issue is more about procedure and rules that can be changed.

Peace

Re: Re: Interesting
 

This IS new information (I think): the board had announced that there would be no exceptions.

In hindsight, perhaps you would agree that such an announcement was not wise. In politics (in the broad sense, including association politics) and ethics both, rules are typically general rather than universal. That is, they allow exceptions.

You have allowed medical exceptions in the past, and scheduled 2 meetings this year so that if a guy were sick on one weekend he could still attend the other. But then: what if one of your best were sick for 10 days over both clinics? Maybe you'd like to make an exception?

One reason that exceptionless rules are unwise is that usually we are not smart enough to imagine all of the possible exceptional cases in advance.

If I might make a suggestion: rather than disallow exceptions, you might announce that exceptions will be considered only prior to the clinics, and only upon submission of documentation of the reason for not attending. Such a policy, in conjunction with providing alternative clinic dates, would discourage and deter requests for exceptions without ruling them out in advance.

None of this addresses the specific case of Hector. I take it that this is all blood under the bridge at this point. I am sure that I don't know enough about Hector or the people involved to say anything helpful about the specific case. Others have pointed out that Hector might be lying, or might be taking advantage of status in the association, but then the case would be easy, since we could say that even on the merits the case shouldn't have been an exception. Assuming that Hector had a genuinely good case for an exception points up the badness of the "no exceptions" rule.

You say you resigned because your conscience dictated allegiance to the procedure. Fair enough. There is a point at which one might say: we said no exceptions, and even if that was a mistake (note to next year's board), we must stick to that for the sake of credibility.

On the other hand, if an exceptionless rule WAS a mistake, does it serve justice and fairness to insist on enforcing the mistaken rule?

These discussions usually generate a lot more heat than light. The main reason I think that the exceptionless rule is a mistake is that it might force you to choose between goods: credibility and (let's assume) fairness to Hector. If Hector's request were on the up-and-up, then that's in fact the choice you confronted.

No doubt you'll gain perspective on this issue with time.

That's where they always stick guys that can't get up to third :)

Dagnabit!
 

Rich you beat me to it!

I was going to say, "in my area CC, we always place the least competent umpire of the crew on the plate in big games, less likely his performance will bite your crew in their collective butts!"

Re: Dagnabit!
 

Well, we'd like you and Rich to hustle down here and try out for our association. We're short umpires for our Freshmen and JV games.

Seriously, I don't understand the comment, even in jest. Rich, you put at the plate the guy who can't get to third? Our plate umpire covers third in several instances: bases empty triple, R1 and ball go to third on a base hit, R2 tags on a fly and goes to third, R2 goes to third on a throw across the infield, and (optional) R2 goes to third when F1 picks off and the throw goes into the outfield.

Of course, if your comments related to a four-man crew, you're entitled to your opinion. We use two-man crews until the play-offs, when we'll switch to four. Our last district games are played on 3 May this year.

We don't decide where the umpires go; that's the province of the coaches. They flip a coin, and the winner picks where the series starts. Almost all choose to start away, so they get the double-header on their field. That toss also sets the umpires: The "losing" coach wins second and the plate. The "winning" coach gets third and first. We rotate once for the second game. PU goes to third, etc.

If there's a third game, (always immediately after the first), they flip again. We have had instances where the plate umpire of the second game is chosen also as the plate umpire of the third game. The coach who lost the first toss wins the second. He gets to choose whether he wants the second-base umpire to have to plate. I've had that double-header twice in thirty years.

Umpires aren't assigned until the state tournament, where there are four schools in each division competing for the championship.

It appears that our coaches are somewhat less cavalier about who calls the plate than is obviously the case in your areas.

<b>"If there's a third game, (always immediately after the first), they flip again."</B>

And what, then the second game is played after the third? Only in Texas.

Well, gosh, Ben, I thought the context would be clear, especially to an English teacher. That section of my post deals explicitly with the status of the umpires for the double-header. If the teams split the first two games, then....

I'll explain it so you'll understand that we in Texas count the same way you guys in Washington do.

The third game [of the series] is played immediately after the first game [of the double header]....

If the winning coach wants the plate umpire from the second game [of the series] to call the plate in the third and deciding game, there's no day off: The third game is played immediately after the first [of that day].

Ya think?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Apr 16th, 2005 at 02:27 PM]

And you think your original post made that clear? I don't about where Ben is, but it didn't read clear in Spokane. Maybe Ben, if he is an English teacher, understood it better than us non-English teachers.

I had a little trouble with your syntax, but....

Still, I understand: When you're talking to an English teacher, you're a "non-English teacher." When you're talking to a rat, you're....

You made a different claim just one month ago on 16 March. Let me quote Garth Benham from the thread: "Pickoffs from the windup": <font color=maroon><b>I am a substitute teacher. I am not the type, however, who babysits. I do not show videos or supervise study halls. I work only for those teachers who know that I will work continue the education of their students. I am endorsed to teach music, social studies and English.</font></b>

And golly, Mr. Benham, <i>you</i> are Ben.

Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

My original comment was completely in jest, but obviously you are short a sense of humor. Big surprise, there.

I don't care how you folks choose your playoff umpires. It's obvious the rats run the show where you live and you are (talent and experience aside) the beneficiary of such a system. I could come down there and be the best technical umpire around, but without such familiarity I'd be sitting home come playoff time.

Believe it or not, regional umpires are hired by the teams where we live and, GASP, we decide as a crew who's working what position. If a coach ever tried to tell me who was going to work the plate, I'd probably start laughing and ask him if he was already trying to work ME.

I don't work freshman and JV games, sorry. Can't help you.

<i>"I am a substitute teacher.</i>

That is true. And I do carry those endorsements. But you as an English teacher, more than most, know the difference between a substitute teacher and an English teacher. English teachers, at least in Washington and most other states, have degrees in English, I do not. I have an "Endorsement" than allows me to sub. And you will, or rather could, if you were so inclined, note that I was careful NOT to claim to be an English teacher. Any real
English teacher would have been able to see that in my orignal post. I suppose, I could attempt to make it more clear, if necessary.

You have such a need to be correct, Carl, you'll probably pronounce them one and the same. However, I have never claimed to be an English teacher, not to you and definitely not to a Rat; and, in fact, I am not.

And, by golly, my name is not Ben. I have no idea to whom you speak when you speak to Ben. If you wish to address me, I have a name.

[Edited by GarthB on Apr 17th, 2005 at 01:27 AM]

Oh boy!!

Sometimes these threads go rapidly from informative to infuriatingly childish. Large egos with thin skins. I shake my head and smile.

Mike

Ok, "teacher of English," then.

There's no difference. You were "lording" it over the poor old coach.

Typical!