The Official Forum - An ethics problem?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - An ethics problem? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/19714-ethics-problem.html)

Carl,

In your very own original post you asked for advice, feedback, and input. When they gave it to you, you felt they were criticizing you.

You also asked in your original post "what if anything did I do wrong?". When they posted what, in their opinion, you did wrong, you again felt they were criticizing you.

If you don't want people to tell you that your wrong, don't ask for advice, feedback or input.

Quote:

Originally posted by mj
Carl,

In your very own original post you asked for advice, feedback, and input. When they gave it to you, you felt they were criticizing you.

You also asked in your original post "what if anything did I do wrong?". When they posted what, in their opinion, you did wrong, you again felt they were criticizing you.

If you don't want people to tell you that your wrong, don't ask for advice, feedback or input.

Why not go back read the thread. You'll see my comments were to the old gang of rat haters, whom I knew would pop up with nasty comments and a poster whose point I misread - and later apologized.

"They"?

Nonsense.

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Yesterday, I was in the midst of a situation, and I'd like some advice, feedback, input, etc.

When I returned to my Association after four years in retirement, they returned me to my office: Vice-President. Our constitution makes the VP the Training and Program Director. The president appointed to me other old job, Rules Interpreter.

We're approaching play-off time, and tomorrow we have to submit the names of our officials who are members in good standing.

The State Board several years ago, while I was a member, adopted a rule that no umpire could be accepted for playoffs without attending a three- and four-man clinic. (The schools in my area always use four.) A local chapter could suspend the rule, if it chose.

On 5 January, the calendar of events and meeting dates was given to every umpire. The Board set two dates for the 3/4 clinic: 3 and 10 April. An umpire who wanted play-off games had to attend one.

Each clinic was three-and-a-half hours, complete with drills: We used runners, a varsity coach hit fungos to outfielders, and we drilled/drilled/drilled. Last night at our regular meeting, each umpire, even those who did not attend the training, received a 10-page handout, which I wrote, outlining our coverage.

One of last year's play-off umpires did not make either clinic. Last night at the Board meeting he presented a letter asking to be excused from attendance; he wanted his name back on the list. He pointed out that he didn't attend events on Sundays because of a family matter. His sister had died, and everyone gathered on Sunday to commemorate/remember the event. His sister died more than two years ago.

I argued that a family meeting such as that could be moved earlier or later, especially since two years had passed for a healing to take place.

I argued that every person who attended the clinic would now be open to the charge of being stupid: Why go out next year and spend more than four hours getting to, staying in, and coming from a clinic? Oh, the rule says you won't be in good standing. It does? It didn't say that for Hector (I'll call him).

I argued that baseball umpires should, more than most officials, believe in the rule of law. We operate by the rules, I said.

I argued that the list of umpires who missed the clinic included more than 20 former playoff umpires. If you return this umpire to the list, you will have to return them all, I said.

We voted by secret ballot. The vote was 5-4, and Hector is now a certified play-off umpire.

I immediately resigned my position on the Board.

The president of the chapter informed me by email this morning that I was still the rules interpreter - if I wanted it.

What, if anything, did I do wrong?

You stated your position on the issue and then the vote was 5-4 against your position. Close call, judgement rules, as it does on the field. The only thing I think you did wrong was resigning from the board, which leaves you out of future position discussions and votes. No way to make a difference if you don't have a vote. What if every member of Congress resigned the first time the vote did not go with the position they argued for?

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
You stated your position on the issue and then the vote was 5-4 against your position. Close call, judgement rules, as it does on the field. The only thing I think you did wrong was resigning from the board, which leaves you out of future position discussions and votes. No way to make a difference if you don't have a vote. What if every member of Congress resigned the first time the vote did not go with the position they argued for?

I appreciate your opinion. Several others echoed that advice. But when I taught logic, we'd call your final question a "false analogy." Being a member of a baseball Board of Directors is not even remotely similar to being an elected US congressman.

I've been on that Board for nearly 30 years. I've lost countless votes. I never resigned.

I've won more than I lost. Obviously, in my mind, this vote was crucial to determining whether I could work with those umpires.

We announced as a Board there would be no exceptions. Then, at our first opportunity, we granted an exception.

Sorry, that's just not my cup of tea.

Thanks for taking time to post an answer to my question.

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
You stated your position on the issue and then the vote was 5-4 against your position. Close call, judgement rules, as it does on the field. The only thing I think you did wrong was resigning from the board, which leaves you out of future position discussions and votes. No way to make a difference if you don't have a vote. What if every member of Congress resigned the first time the vote did not go with the position they argued for?

I appreciate your opinion. Several others echoed that advice. But when I taught logic, we'd call your final question a "false analogy." Being a member of a baseball Board of Directors is not even remotely similar to being an elected US congressman.

I've been on that Board for nearly 30 years. I've lost countless votes. I never resigned.

I've won more than I lost. Obviously, in my mind, this vote was crucial to determining whether I could work with those umpires.

We announced as a Board there would be no exceptions. Then, at our first opportunity, we granted an exception.

Sorry, that's just not my cup of tea.

Thanks for taking time to post an answer to my question.

If, in your mind, this vote was crucial to determine whether you could work with those umpires, then you did not need to ask the opinion of others. Your mind was set on a path. Why was this situation different than the others on which you were outvoted over the past 30 years?

Quote:

What if every member of Congress resigned the first time the vote did not go with the position they argued for?

Then I think we'd all be a lot better off.

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
If, in your mind, this vote was crucial to determine whether you could work with those umpires, then you did not need to ask the opinion of others. Your mind was set on a path. Why was this situation different than the others on which you were outvoted over the past 30 years?

DG: I asked "the opinion of others" after the fact. I've discovered that most of the posters thought the Board was wrong and that many agreed with my resignation.

But I can't help you if you don't see the distinction between this lost vote and my previous lost vote, when the Board decided not to increase the training hours required of rookie umpires.

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
If, in your mind, this vote was crucial to determine whether you could work with those umpires, then you did not need to ask the opinion of others. Your mind was set on a path. Why was this situation different than the others on which you were outvoted over the past 30 years?

DG: I asked "the opinion of others" after the fact. I've discovered that most of the posters thought the Board was wrong and that many agreed with my resignation.

But I can't help you if you don't see the distinction between this lost vote and my previous lost vote, when the Board decided not to increase the training hours required of rookie umpires.

I agree, the Board was wrong, and it was a 5-4 vote, so there were 4 who agreed. I don't agree with the resignation, as I stated earlier. This leaves you out of future discussions and votes. I also don't see why you would want to remain as rules interpreter for an association that has 5 Board members you don't agree with.

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
I also don't see why you would want to remain as rules interpreter for an association that has 5 Board members you don't agree with.

There's no vote on what a "rule" means in our chapter. This way, I know the interpretation extant will be correct. There shouldn't be any politics connected with: Define the time of the pitch in the wind-up position.

Carl,

I commend you for being a stand-up guy. Far too often boards become a good-ole-boy network where the "executives" decide what rules to enforce based on who is involved. Odd how these associations stress consistency of mechanics on the field and ignore them in a meeting room. I believe we lose a lot of good, young talent due to the BS and Politics of associations.

I predict your association will eventually come around, see the error of their decision, and ask you back onto the board. Until then, know that you accurately applied the rules. You're probably feeling less pressure than the 5 who ignored them.