Major Boys, Batter attempts to bunt at ball but is hit by pitch that is definitely not a strike. Do you call strike or does the batter get a walk?

motcoach,

Since he offered, it's a strike. (If strike 3, he is out.) Since it hit him, the ball is dead. No award of first base.

JM

Why . . .
 

. . . Do we continue to deal with this sh!t!

Obviously, this is now Eteamsleeze. . .

A coaches site.

I am gone.

Anyone know why they disabled the searching in the forums? I know it's been a while and may have been discussed before, but if people could search the forum, there may not be all these repeat posts all the time on the same subjects.

-J

Look in the book?
 

I think what Tim was trying to say is that there are many rules that are very simple and simply need to be looked up before posting.

This is one of those. why would the batter get a walk?

#1 its a strike, #2 the batter is HBP.

Rule in that order.

Thanks
David

Re: Look in the book?
 

And, part of Tee's lament is it seems that one after another, umpire boards have been becoming LL coaches boards. Sleazeteamz went to the darkside a long time ago, and now, what some of us once considered the last umpire board, officialforum, appears to be following in its footsteps.

Re: Why . . .
 

Being brand new to this board I can only offer one opinion: Tim, please don't be "gone." I'm enjoying this board, your comments, and often well thought-out responses. Believe it or not, while some threads probably have been discussed before, I'm sure the poster didn't know that. I'm learning a helluva lot from you guys and don't want to see any of you "senior" guys leave.

JMHO

Re: Why . . .
 

Are you the same Tee that wrote this when CC announced you as a writer?

"I am excited for the opportunity to offer any help that I can offer to umpires of all types, shapes and levels."

Re: Re: Why . . .
 

Take a pill Rich.

Even Dr. Phil has place he can go to get away from his work. Just because one offers to do something in one environment doesn't mean he wants to "take his work home."

As another exampler, some local LL umpires criticize me for not volunteering my umpiring. They claim I've given nothing back to the community. Apparently my 30 years of volunteer service for other youth activities, my parish and other non-profit groups is meaningless because it isn't LL.

Just my 2 cents.

This IS an open official forum, correct?

You don't have to respond to posts, correct?

It is what it is!

I personally welcome the chance to assist new officials/coaches who are willing to improve and accept criticism. And you will get criticism here. I am the ump I am because of this forum. Yeh, you all are to blame!

But as some have already mentioned in such polite terms, get a rule book and study the rules.

Coaching is not just a title, it's a responsibility!

[Edited by thumpferee on May 22nd, 2005 at 03:03 PM]

Rule 6.05 "A batter is out when - "
(f)"He attempts to hit a third strike and the ball touches him"

I'm all for asking questions, but as others have said, try reading the rule book first...

The answer may be right in front of you...

Kaliix...
 

Even though your rule quote is correct on a 3rd strike, the original poster did not say it was the 3rd strike. The ball is dead however, and all runners return to the base occupied at TOP.

Tim...

As much as your experience and knowledge has helped many over time, including myself, it is far outweighed by your "better-than-the-rest" attitude, and unsolicited remarks.
If you dont like the post, or the question, or the opinion, move on.
Let others answer the question, or offer advice. Do only officials have the right to post on this forum? Do all queries have to be substantive in nature?
So someone comes aboard and asks a question that is obvious to the majority. Whats the problem? Answer it or move to the next one. Why do you feel so compelled that you HAVE to bash?
I for one hope you stick to what you said in your post.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Tee is right, this thread is a waste of time. The rule in question is not hard to understand, all you have to do is get out the rule book and read it. This is completly different than asking a valid question about somehthing which one can not learn by simply opening a book.

Why do you have a problem with Tee telling it how it is? It is obvious that Tee ejoys posting to this board, and he does not want to have to waid through "crap" posts to get to a real one.

Tee was recently chased off another internet board for a while by some of the idiots who post there. Why are you trying to chase him off this one? Tee is one of the few "quality" posters here. You should be thanking Tim for all of his input on this board, not trying to get rid of him.

If the question bugs you - just don't participate in the thread.

Re: Re: Re: Why . . .
 

I hear ya, GB. While I haven't been criticized recently for not volunteering to umpire, I feel that 28 years of working hard to reach the level I have reached is good enough for me. I don't begrudge anyone who volunteers to umpire, but those days are decades long gone for me. My time is just too valuable to do it.

Its not the question, it the "theme" the board is taking with all these coaches obviously asking about calls they feel they were "screwed" on in a recent game. Its "Official Forum" not "Official Forum for Coaches who question basic calls."

My $.02.

And,
 

I am sorry to see yet another website be taken over by coaches and Little League umpires.

The repercussions are yet to be seen . . .

HOWEVER, I will not be involved in a Little League site at any level.

That is my personal choice.

LDUB:
The post a waste of time? To who? You? To the majority on the board? Yeah probably. But someone is looking to learn, get some information, whats wrong with that. Again, done like it, think its a waste, you got a choice. Hit your "back" button. Does it take that long to do that?
Your right as far as the rule book. Agreed. However, when one is unfamiliar (new official, coach, parent, player etc), even a thorough read of the rules can be hard to decipher. We all know the rule book, as written, is antiquated, and a difficult read, even for seasoned officials.
Plus, when I first began, I read and re-read the book. I devoured it. However, I often solicited the advice of "Big Dawg" officials, who helped me understand the letter of the law, and the understanding of the rule, and more importantly, the application.
You can read the rule, recite it verbatim, but sometimes all it takes is for someone who's "been there and done that" to give a simple play with the rule/play/sitch. Amazingly, many times that's the final piece of the puzzle, and it all comes together, quicker and clearer.
I'll be forever indebted to a couple guys (mentors) who took the time to explain rules, plays etc, that made it so much clearer. It helped cut down the learing curve for me. I still worked hard, and studied, but sometimes nothing can beat the words of wisdom, of experience, someone willing to "pass it on".
Hopefully someday, If Im annointed "Big Dawg" status, I will remember the guys who took the time on the field, over the phone, staying after games, posting on the net, to pass on to me, and I'll try to have same willing attitude.
Plus, a parent, coach, etc who asks a question, no matter how obvious we feel the inquiry is, I feel a responsibility to help and inform. They will take away from that short conversation (or post)some newly gained info, and some positive reaction to an official! Gee, what a few minutes of time will do!
Im not trying to chase him off the board. And you say I should thank him. I did acknowledge his "Big Dawg" status. And since he is one of the more consistent posters, I do appreciate that. He is one of the guys, as mentioned earlier, who Ive learned a great deal from. Again, forever indebted. When first starting out, this forum was/is invaluable.
Someone would post a play/sitch, and he, among all you others would respond, giving their take. I knew the rule, I had read the book. But when broken down by you guys who have fought the war, many times, and expalined it, it was like the clouds opening up, and angels singing. The written rule just became a clear picture. "I can see!"
Of course the best learning tool is experience, doing game after game after game. But the soldier (official) is oh-so more ready, after talking to a soldier who had already been there.
My goodness, of course we all want someone like him to post, to pass on his invaluable knowledge. As I want to keep reading from all of you.
But the substance of his posts, takes on less meaning every time he has to bash someone, make fun of someone etc. Or get in a pissing contest with another official. Geez, lets get over ourselves.
Only positive things can come out of answering a question for a player, parent, coach etc, in the right context.
Between innings explaining a dead ball strike to a parent? Wrong context.
Walking to the field, and a parent/coach/player asks you to explain the IFF, or a question here on the board? The right context.
Again, if you or anyone doesnt like the post, move on. Does it really take that long to click away??

Re: And,
 

Tee,
While I understand where you are coming from, your response is melodramatic.

Don't like the question, just don't read any further and waste your time. I read every new thread that comes on this board. Some don't interest me and I never look at them again. But sorting through them is part the price one pays for reading the forum. There hasn't been that many simple questions to merit the response you gave.

Ignore the post and move on, like everyone else here.

Oh, and don't go away either. Like alot of people here, I enjoy your posts, your experience and your insight.

thats the nut of it. Theres a difference b/w honest questions NOT immediately obvious in the book(s) and, "I hated this call against my team in my last game and I want to pizznmoan/get backup/whatever from every internet board I can find." :D *Those* questions are for eTeamz.

Re: Re: And,
 

It doesn't work. It's been tried on other boards, and it doesn't work.

Many of us were encouraged, even solicted to post to this site at it's inception because it was not a LL site and it was not a coaches' site. We had seen other sites transform from big boy umpiring sites to LL umpiring and coaches sites. When we ignored the LL and coaches posts they just multiplied to the point that one couldn't see past the clutter. It wasn' worth going there anymore to read the first paragraph of 75% of the threads and to find they didn't apply to umpiring baseball above T-ball or LL.

Umpire.org even added a "small diamond" page at their site to give those folks a place to go and to reduce the clutter at the other pages. Didn't work. LL posts still abound on all the other pages instead of the small diamond page.

Sleazeteamz(c) has a coaches site. You'd never know it.

I haven't posted at either board for four years or more.

Now, just as the Europeans couldn't be stopped from heading westward across the plains, the mountains and to the pacific, the drift of LL and coaching to Officialforum has increased and resembles the early stages of the take overs at the other boards.

I don't think we're being elitst. It just seems to some of us that with all the boards on the internet, one could escape being taken over by LL level posts.

Re: And,
 

I have to agree. Having participated on many of the other boards for the last several years, its refreshing to read what umpires might be questioning about the rules.

It waste a lot of time dealing with obvious rules that anyone could look up in any rule book if they just would take the time.

And you can't just skip a thread, because you don't know what its about until you read and then many times there is more insight into the followup questions than are
contrived from the original post.

Thanks but that's why I don't so small ball anymore.

Thanks
David

Sleazteams's separate board for coaches does, at least, filter out the non-gameplay questions (My DD/son wants to play travel ball and all-stars... we live near the border of our district... which bat do you recommend for slaphitters... blah blah blah). We don't seem to have that problem here.

BUT! A simple FASQ with Frequently Asked Stupid Questions would be helpful in weeding out the "you wouldn't believe what happened in the game I was coaching" crap.

You are totaly missing the point. This is the "Official Fourm." It is for sports officials to discuss the various aspects of officiating. It is not a place (at least it should not be) where uneducated coaches and fanboys come to ask simple rule questions.

Once again you are missing the point. Read what Garth wrote.

Although offered earlier in sarcasm, I think the idea of a invitation-only 'senior' umpires section has merit. Have the moderator (s) issue invites to the proper contributors/audience and issue a password or whatever. The rest can ask eTeamz-level stuff as presently, and the 'senior' umpires can comment or not on those as they see fit.

I think there is a real need for a section where senior umpires can advise junior umpires who are *serious* about moving up and improving their skills without the attendant clutter and coach-speak, about the nuances in umpiring that this board's senior members only know from years of hard-won experience. Perhaps I am wrong.

I hate to think of the senior umpires here leaving in frustration. Yes, it can get rough at times but folks who whine about some senior-umpire comments must NEVER get evaluated on the field, or perhaps it is of the "No Umpire Left Behind" variety. My first evals were full of the terms "deficient," "sucks," "work on ...." and I did not take offense, I took it to heart and worked (work) to improve. I dont take offense at my evaluators' sometimes-salty commentary because I want to know what they know, and their 'war-stories' can save me from innumerable errors and misconceptions before I screw up in my next game. They've been there. I haven't, yet. Some places they've been, I don't want to go. But I will, if I don't listen.

I may never 'qualify' for the section described above but Ill keep trying, and above all I think its important to keep the priceless experience of senior umpires around. You can't get this from books...its the voice of hundreds or thousands of games and in many cases decades of game experience. So the medicine comes a bit tart and bitter sometimes. So. What?

I dont pretend to assume Im even a candidate to be even in the audience for such a group. But I know enough to know that the loss of our senior umpires would render this board meaningless.

I had intended to post the following under the "Restructuring" thread, but it has mysteriously "disappeared" while I was composing my thoughts. Some of my comments reference things that were said in that thread and may appear "out of context" on this thread.

Gentlemen,

When I first discovered this site (sometime around two years ago) a couple of things quickly became apparent to me.

1. This site is an incredibly valuable resource (possibly <b>unmatched</b>) for someone who is interested in improving their understanding of the proper application of the rules of baseball.

2. The individuals whose contributions make it such do <b>not</b> "suffer fools gladly".

Out of respect and appreciation for the experience and generosity of those who were willing to share their knowledge - and realizing that I would have been "out of my league" in this forum at the time - I refrained from posting until April of this year. Plus, I developed a sneaking suspicion that at least some of those who posted really didn't <b>like</b> coaches. I've seen enough to realize that they may have very good reasons for this.

When I did begin posting, I thought about whether or not I should reveal that I was a coach. Deciding to follow an "honesty is the best policy" approach, I laid my cards on the table through both my choice of a nickname and by occasionally including self-deprecating references to the fact that I was a coach in my posts. Some readers initially appeared skeptical that I <b>was</b> a coach.

When I <b>do</b> post on this forum, I put some effort into what I write. I am pretty sure that I have <b>never</b> initiated a thread on this forum. In my responses to what others have posted, I make a real effort to actually contribute something to the discussion and frequently offer rule references and cites from accepted interpretations in support of the position I take on a given question. I do this because it helps <b>me</b> improve my understanding of the rules and because I'm trying to "give something back" in helping others develop their understanding just as I was helped in developing my level of understanding.

I am also trying to contribute something that may be valuable to some readers. Every time you umpire a game, Managers are part of the equation. By posting, I'm offering you some insight into how a coach understands the rules, how he perceives your rulings and mechanics, and what types of things might lead him to appeal or protest a given ruling. This might help some of the umpires who come to this forum improve their game management capabilities.

I am fully sympathetic with those who lament the dilution/pollution of this forum with questions that have been asked and answered a thousand times and could be fairly easily resolved with a little effort at research rather than imposing on the generosity of others. I also agree with those who suggest that mechanisms such as "FAQs" or a separate "Beginner's Forum" would do little to address the issue. Many of those who "barge in" with "stupid questions" would continue to do so even if those things did exist.

If I controlled this forum (which I don't), I would seriously consider doing two things:

1. Updating the "Terms of Use" to include a statement to the effect that those who post on this board are expected to have read the rules and have done some degree of "due diligence" in researching their question prior to posting on this board. There would be the traditional "I agree" checkbox required as part of the registration process necessary to post. In and of itself, this would obviously accomplish nothing. On to step 2.

2. Include a "rules test" as a part of the registration process - a fairly difficult one, but not ridiculously so. A "passing grade" would be <b>required</b> before the registrant would be authorized to post on the board. This would do a couple of things. First the "happened to be in the neighborhood" crowd wouldn't even take the time to complete the test and would just "bounce" to another website that turned up in their Google search. For those who did take the time to complete the test, it would provide a mechanism to weed out those who would be "in over their heads" on this board. I am quite confident that the membership of this board would be able to come up with a suitable test in a matter of hours (if not minutes) and it would be a trivial technical task to include the test as part of the registration process.

Now those who <b>do</b> control this board may consider increasing registrations a higher priority than "filtering" potential registrants who may be better suited to a different forum. Obviously, that is <b>entirely</b> their call. I merely offer the above as <b>practical</b> suggestions should they coincide with the wishes of the "owners" of this forum.

Some who have commented in this thread suggest that <b>who</b> posts is, in some sense, more important than <b>what</b> is said. I have a bit of a problem with this position, but I'm just a coach, so maybe I just don't understand.

Therefore, I have decided to leave the matter in <b>your</b> hands. If the majority of knowledgeable contributors to this board (I'm not going to "name names" because I wish to neither "damn with faint praise" nor "insult by inadvertant ommission") feel that my posts do <b>not</b> contribute to the forum, I will simply refrain from posting in the future and return to "lurking". Alternatively, I could change my nickname and avoid referring to the fact that I am a coach. Had I initially done so, I would venture to guess that <b>none</b> of you would have realized that I am a coach. Regardless, I will abide by the decision of the membership - from a sense of respect and gratitude rather than one of obligation. I await your decision.

JM

3 questions on this test:

1) When are the hands part of the bat?
2) In which of the following can the batter-runner try to advance to first (followed by typical D3K sitches)
3) When is Infield Fly in effect?

That is not a bad idea. The only problem is that on this website, when you register, you are able to post to boards about a variety of sports. If a rugby official wants to join the board, he should not have to take a baseball rules test. Possibly when one registers, he could be prompted to which forums he wishes to post too, and he could take a test regarding those specific sports. That might only be needed for the baseball forum, so mabye the test should be required before posting only for baseball.

I think that mabye the test, coupled with a waiting period before one can post, mabye 10 days or so after registering would also help out a lot. The waiting period whould greatly decrease the number of people who come here to post one simple question on the first day they register, and then never return. If they see that they can't post here for 10 days, they will likely take their post to eteamz. Any quality poster would not mind having to wait 10 days before posting in order to weed out the bad posts.

The lament about the proliferation of Little League umpires reminds me of the old joke about the guy who goes to a psychiatrist and says "Doc, you gotta help us. My brother thinks he's a chicken!" The doctor replies, "That's reflective of a serious mental disorder, you should bring him in to see me immediately." To which the man replies, "Well, I would Doc, but you see, we need the eggs!"

While I understand this "Official Forum" is free to use, it is, nonetheless, a part of Officiating.com which is a subscriber-supported, for-profit enterprise. Assuming the owners of Officiating.com are economically rational people, it would astound me to learn that they condoned or supported the idea of trying to run the Little League umpires off of this site.

Because, after all, they need the eggs.

What is better for business, attracting people with no knowledge, or retaining the current quality posters? Which are more likely to suscrible to officiating.com or buy the BRD? Because isn't that what really brings in the "eggs".

The people "lamenting" don't need the eggs.

The people who set this site up initially have changed their minds. They do need the eggs. And that is understandable, lamentable, but understandable.

how many 'serious' umpires would buy a membership (if they havent already) to Officiating.com if they were reasonably confident that a screening process such as was described would significantly improve the post quality of this forum?

Those are your real eggs :D

Re: Re: And,
 

I have to disagree with you, David. And with Tee.

Every umpire can improve, both self-image and application of the rules, by listening to/reading "stupid" questions.

Be honest. When someone posts a question that seems trés simple, our (my!) reaction is: "Gosh, I know that. Why doesn't he?" The teacher in eighth grade American History asks: "Can anyone explain why George Washington was <i>not</i> the first president?" One or two hands will shoot up - and explain when called upon that GW was the first president "under the constitution of 1787."

The students who already knew the answer don't "learn" anything. But their self-esteem is not shattered either.

In every learning environment, there are those who already know the material, those who have a guess, and those who haven't a clue.

Think about it: I took American History in junior high, went back to the course (in two semesters) in high school, and took the required two semesters of American history as part of my basics at college. I learned material in every course <i>even though by college I already knew the facts</i>.

I have a suggestion that would solve everybody's problem. We get one of the elementary questions: As soon as someone answers it correctly, everyone else can drop the thread. For example, this thread would have been two posts long under those guidelines.

Motcoach asks the question, Coach JM answers correctly: end of story. Those who know the answer feel superior, and those who don't will learn.

Increasing self-esteem is one reason.

There's a second, possibly more important reason; <i>i.e.</i>, building a list of questions with "obvious" answers helps us train beginning umpires. (And coaches)

Over at eTeamz, there's a great little collection compiled by Jim Booth called "The Myths of Baseball."

So, I'll make this offer: Submit to me ([email protected]) your collection of "stupid questions." We'll build our own list. I'll make it a free article on the paid site, refer to it frequently, and update it periodically.

Of course, most of our list will echo Jim's, but <i>our</i> explication and explanation will differ. "Ideas" can't be copyrighted, and we naturally would give Jim credit for that idea.

Increased self-esteem ("Hey, I know that," as my hand shoots into the air) and explaing to candidate umpires that they should look for a coach to say this ("And here's your reply"): Strikes me those are certainly reasons enough not to shoo away all the beginners. (And remember, not every beginners is LL. Some are Pony, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, etc. - grin)

BTW: Youth ball features rules based on OBR, but each organization has its own quirks. That, for me, is sufficient to keep me interested. Someone has suggested a BRD for Youth Ball. We're mulling it over.

Good luck on that BRD for youth ball. Up until about 2 weeks ago I worked for a 13-15 league that said they played Babe Ruth rules, and FED, where Babe Ruth did not apply, plus they had their own set of league rules that were often contradictions to one or the other. So it is up to the umpire to figure out that we can have a FPSR because FED has it, and Babe Ruth does not mention, but 2 trips to the mound in the same inning causes pitcher removal because Babe Ruth has this rule, unless of course the league rules are completely different. Holy cow!

Not a bad idea at all Carl. I worked a few weeks after HS season in a "league" that had 4 community fields represented. One played Dizzy Dean, one played Pony, one played straight OBR with safety modifications (similar to AAU, but not affiliated) and one didn't know what they were playing by, so the visitors rules applied. It was bizarre. They did all agree to play Dizzy Dean for their end of season tourney. You will have quite a few customers for a Youth Ball BRD.

Re: Re: Re: And,
 

I thought this website was for sports officials of 12 various sports. Not a place where uneducated coaches come to ask simple rule questions which could be solved by them reading the ORB on the MLB website.

Re: Re: Re: Re: And,
 

Isn't that the attitude what gets Tee into trouble when he rails against "LL umpires"? If the only people who get to post are those who already know the answers....

Re: Re: Re: Re: And,
 

No. This site is intended to help a business generate revenue. How that revenue is generated is the question and the latest answer seems to be by attracting and accepting the largest possible audience. Often that leads to designing for the lowest common denominator. But hey, it worked so well for the public school system.

<B>"Isn't that the attitude what gets Tee into trouble when he rails against "LL umpires"? "</B>


Trouble?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And,
 

I am not against anyone asking questions. Which way to I face when I dust off the plate? That is a question that a guy getting ready to call his first game might not know. And I don't believe that this is covered in any books, so the only way that guy is going to learn the answer is by asking someone, either online or in person.

I always thought that was different than a coach asking for an answer that is straight out of the rule book. If the original question was asking the defenition of "passed" in determining if a runner is out for contacting a batted ball, that is a decent question. You will never figure it out by just reading the OBR. But dead ball strikes are not hard to understand if you just read the book.

Garth is right. This forum is just used to feed money to Officiating.com. I have no input over how this website is run, so if you want to encourage coach questions, go for it.

But as I have said before, For some reason, motcoach does not strike me as a guy who will be buying an Officiating.com membership. Some people who post on this board hold grudges. A few months back, some posters refused to buy the BRD because they had to give an email address. If they are driven from this board because of "bad" posts, that is just another bad mark against Officiating.com to them.

As Garth said, this board is used to help generate revenue for Officitaing.com. The more posters you get to the forum, the more people who will visit the website. But as more and more bad questions are posted, certain posters will be driven away from the board.

I am not a marketing guy, but I would think you would like to market your product towards people who would be willing to purchace it. I bet there aren't a lot of snowblower ads down in Texas.

Officiating.com has a choice, they can use their forum to retain a client base who are in to sports officiating, or they can try to attract as many people to the forum as possible, many of which who are coaches and fans, which in turn will drive away some of the sports officials.

I would assume the officials would be more likely to buy books about officiating than the coaches and fans.

As I've said before, you guys who don't want simple questions asked on this site should just not post to the thread. The first post answered the thread. Just leave it at that.

The more you post to the thread, the more you emphasize the thread. Some people just don't get it.

You are correct, except you are the one who dosen't get it. This goes a lot deeper than ignoring a post every month or two. Eventually this board will be overrun with threads similar to this one. Go to eteamz and try and try to figure out which of the threads are not LL/coach posts.

I just checked eteamz, the first post on the list similar to this one, a post about a simple rule, and the second post is about if the batter's hands are part of the bat or not. Do you want this fourm to turn into that? At the rate this board is going, it dosen't have much time untill it is just another eteamz.

What aggravates me about eTeamz is that EVERY OBR post is ASSUMED to be small diamond, LL in nature. That day is slowly coming here.

threads
 

I,m really confused about the distain for coach and/or LL generated threads.
When you register with this sight it welcomes those types of posters.
This sight is not really flooded with thread topics. How few threads a day would there be without these type?

I've read this board just about every day since I found it a little over a year ago. There are always occasional posts of a simple nature that could be answered by just looking at the rule book.

It it is only my opinion, but these posts have not increased in frequency. They are bound to show up every once in a while. Answer them in one post. Even tell them to go read the rule book while you do it. Just don't keep posting to the thread and make it go on for three pages. The more people keep posting to the thread, the more popular it becomes. You thus increase the chance that someone will see it, think it's normal and therefore encourage them to post more. Better yet, ignore the post completely and they'll get the message. Either of the previous two options is better than drawing attention to it.

Yet that is what you guys keep doing. And you don't get that you are only defeating your own purpose by continuing to respond.

You can't be serious.

So a new poster is going to read this thread, see how there are many people here who flame "bad" posts, and then decided that this is a good place to post another "bad" post?

And you can look back and see that the only person who actually answered the orignal question was a coach. Every other poster is just complaing about the "bad" post in one way or another.

Actually, I am serious. If I cared enough to read through the threads for the past year and do a statistical analysis, I might be able to prove it. That's not going to happen so it is only my opinion.

You assume these guys know what a bad post is and that they have no desire to see you guys go ballastic and leave the board so they can take over.

If a couple of silly posts is all they need to take over the board, with the response that you guys are giving them, they are half way home...

pardon the pun...

I am also a person that does not come here that often. I do not read every post or every response in a post. I just respond to what I find interesting. I guess some people have more time on their hands.

Funny
 

A google search on another topic led to my discovery of this fine site.

Browsing this forum drew my attention to a rather popular (4 pages) discussion of this seemingly simple rule.

Funny, how this forum turns out to be no different that any other forum ever, eteams, or otherwise. Every hole with an opinion (including me - thanks for drawing me into this mire, btw) needs to share it. And I do not need to know how long its been here, to know that it has been like this from the first week.

How much cooler would this forum be, and how much more successful, and how perfect would our world be, if this thread had only one response: the correct answer.

We could then spend our days in pursuit of knowledge, instead of trolling bbs, fighting such brave anonymous battles, always secure that we are the only one that is right, even though 20+ people, many perhaps distinctively brighter, tell me I am wrong.


Funny, before I could post a reply today, I had to agree to some things, among them, the following:

"The Official Forum was created by Right Sports, Inc. and is intended to provide a safe haven for officials of all levels to come to discuss their avocation. Whether Little League or NCAA, this is the place for officials to discuss rules, mechanics, philosophy, and anything else related to officiating.

Fans, Coaches, Players, and all non-officials: You are welcome to participate, ask questions, give comments, etc. Please respect that this is a discussion forum for sports officials - attacks will not be tolerated."


Little League is fine, and no attacks. Huh, how about that?

So, Tee, or whoever, apparently, you have long been in a place you don't understand from day one. You are not the boss of anybody.

See? I am always right. As usual.

And,
 

You have every right to post anything you want . . . just allow me the same freedom.

And Hey, I understand this site quite well, but thanks.

Join the paid site and read some of my columns . . .

Next up: "What To Do When Working with Smitty or Working With a Poorly Trained Partner"

And please, don't even try to compare this site to eTeamSleeze.

Re: And,
 

Why not Tee? Is that right reserved soley for you??? ;)

Yeah, they don't continually try to spam ya over on eTeamz.

Couldn't help myself, Tee. :D

Funnier Still
 

You've been following this thread since May 21st? Wow. And you promised us you were leaving.


You do have some errors to contend with:

Little League is indeed a valid level for discussion.

Coaches (even fans) are welcome to contribute.

Safe Haven.


Your mean-spirited, condescending response has done nothing but create a two and one-half week argument over an unsupported elitist position that is not consistent with this community or its published standards.

You have yet to address the topic of the thread, any issue that has since arisen, nor your unwillingness to adhere to the policy of tolerance this forum expects.

All you have left is your free-country, free-speech, and apparent free-self-promotion ideal. Strange thing to say, as this lengthy vitriolic thread has developed primarily due to the hypocracy of your first post.

I seem to gather you may have made some positve contributions to this site in the past. Your present negative ones seem more powerful, at the moment.

An apology, even at this point, might demonstrate some amount of character.

Any man can err. Please reconsider your position on the matter, or else keep your word.

Re: Funnier Still
 

I just talked to Tee on the phone.

He said he will apologize right after he finishes his LL triple header and checks etemaz for new posts.

Re: Funnier Still
 

Wow. Freaking hilarious. I about split a gut reading this. You should really consider comedy for a living. You're great. Really. All this and it's only your second post. Man, I can't wait until your third post. Keep it coming.

Dear Dipstick
 

The word apology does not appear in my lexicon.

Sorry dude, I "yam what I yam" . . . and that will never change.

But I am so glad you decided to drop in here and spread some graffiti.

LDUB thanks for the call . . . we had rain.

Re: Funnier Still
 

Now we're getting somewhere.

A little humor to make my afternoon.

A little word about negative comments - that's how we learn. We're umpires, not a politically correct 5-yr old.

They've been trying that positive mess for years and I can tell you its really working.... (g)

Thanks
David

wow, can it be WCB sneaking in under new guise? :D

hmmm, nope, WCB would never misspell "hypocrisy." ;)

Otherwise, leftovers from a freshman junior-college sociology class.


Im with GB.....keep the hits coming! Fuh-ny!

*munches some popcorn*

Re: Dear Dipstick
 

Look between antagonistic and *******.

(And, no, I'm not referring to you.)

Hypocrisy
 

Shoot, ya got me.

Re: Funny
 

I've figured it out. You're the guy I've heard so much about. You know, "The Heydt of Conceit".

Re: Re: Funny
 

Pretty good, Garth! Too bad: I think it's wasted on the object of your affection.
Anyway, a troll by any other name....

Re: Re: Re: Why . . .
 

Reminded me of a local league official the other day. Said "you umpires are only out to make a buck and you don't give anything back to community."

I guess going to Iraq, getting shot at and losing a buddy isn't giving back. It was everything I could do not to stand up and rip this guy's skull from his stupid little head.

Re: And,
 

but...

hmmm