It would be nice to be accepted for the job that you do and not how you look, however, that's not how the world works. When I walk on the field (doesn't matter what level of game that I'm working) my pants and shirt are clean my shoes are polished and my hat doesn't have any sweat stains. I look like an umpire and I have credibility. Now if the neat guy (me) and the sloppy guy (smitty) have a banger at first base whose call is more likely to be accepted? I've got to think most people would accept my call simply because I look like an umpire. That's neither right nor wrong that's just the way it is. Now that being said even if you have that intial credibility you have to do a good job to maintain it or eventually you will be found out. If you look bad I've got to think it will take you longer to be accepted. IMHO.

Ok, who cares if you get more respect or the benefit of the doubt on close calls if show up with a clean, neat uniform. My questions is :Why in the world would you want to show up with a dirty uniform? I mean c'mon, what could the possible reason be for showing up looking like a slob ? People can argue if it's more appropriate to show up to work in a uniform, business formal, or business casual. But I've never heard anyone have as part of their dress policy that clothes should be clean (foremost) and neat (don't have to look starched and pressed but can't be a ball of wrinkles or have holes in them etc.). It's just assumed that you'll be clean and neat. Why should umpiring be any different?

Lawrence

You missed my point.

You are saying that it does not matter what one looks like. You say it is all about how the player preforms. I am saying that to some people, it does matter what one looks like. Some teams would like their players to not look like slobs.

That is what I have noticed. I have worked with guys who wear adjustable 2 stitch hats on the bases. I have worked with guys who wear white socks and cloth belts. I have worked with guys who wear dirty Wal Mart gray pants. From my experiences, these guys are far worse than the average guy. I'm not saying the guy who dresses nice will be the best umpire ever, but he obviously learned what to wear on the field. And more often than not, he has also learned what to do while he is on the field.


I am sorry that my writing isn't up to your standards. I was in a hurry and typed the whole thing as fast as I could.

[Edited by LDUB on Jul 8th, 2005 at 01:13 AM]

Well
 

"Then again, "temas", "preform", and "good" instead of "well" could also be indicators."

See Rich, when you don't have an argument the tendency is to attack your detractor.

Gimme a break . . . what a piece of work Ratski.

No further comment or "I" will be the one in trouble on this issue.

Re: Well
 

I think you missed his point Tim. I think Rich was trying to demonstrate that if one wants to use attention to detail, like how someone dresses, as an indicator of ones performance, then that same logic could apply to someones argument. If ones grammar and spelling are lacking, perhaps the overall written argument isn't up to standards either.

One good turn deserves another...

<i>"See Rich, when you don't have an argument the tendency is to attack your detractor."</i>

Like you are doing now?

What a load of crap. The "attack" portion was, after all, based on his performance. Performance measurement <b>is</b> my side of the argument. Luke made some sloppy mistakes.

Of course (perhaps because he's an umpire) his response to my post was not an attack - in your eyes.

Luke tells me appearance is important. Well, maybe it is to him. Others certainly share his opinion. It isn't to me, and calling me a rat won't change my opinion.

He also postulates than a banger call will be more readily accepted if the umpire is dressed well. Maybe some coaches will, but I won't, and many others won't. The argument that ensues is based on whether or not we believe the call was correct.

If appearance is so important, why did he fail to clean up his post before submitting it? And why are you defending it? By doing so, aren't you saying that sloppy work is OK?

Perhaps appearance isn't as important as you believe. Perhaps you believe it's important in certain situations, but not others. If so, how do you decide when it matters and when it doesn't?

But whatever view you hold, it does not make my opinion that performance is the measurement invalid.

Nah,
 

I got his point.

There seems to be an ongoing discourse on the internet concerning "how" posts are written rather than what is in them.

On another website there is a dicussion currently on "why do umpires look for the smallest of incorrectness in a post and then attack it rather than recognize the real issue and spend time on that" . . .

And I think that is a valid point.

I get tired of posts that comment how dumb a TV announcer is because he used the term "foul tip" when the ball is actually just a "foul ball" --

Skip Carey just the other night: "That ball was foul tipped back to the screen."

Is that so bad? I know he should have said: "And that ball was tipped foul back to the screen."

Side Bar:

That reminds me of George Carlin to Johnny Carson: "Well Johnny I just don't get things, I can say, 'I pricked my finger', but I better not say, 'I fingered my prick.'"

Back on point:

Simply because a poster tried to answer quickly does it mean anything "iffin' he missppells" or missptypes sometin'!

I don't think so.

It is just another little rat thing Rich is doing.

If it's an umpire you know, then you will judge him on the actions more than the appearance. But, if it's an umpire you don't know, the appearance will (in general) affect your perception of the call (or at least your reaction to the call) -- even if you (in general) aren't aware of this.

It's the same as with LDUB's post. He's been here long enough that the typos won't greatly affect anyone's perception of him (it's either "typical" or "anyone can make a mistake" depending on the perceptions you already have). But, if he was new, then it would affect our reaction to his arguement / comments -- see dumdum's posts for one example.

IMO, there is a fairly strong correlation between "looking bad" and "being bad." There's a far weaker correlation between "looking good" and "being good."

Exactly.

Seriously, I wouldn't try to sneak into a FED game. In this hypothetical, I'd be anxious to have an useful pregame that covered the essential differences. But in this I agree with Tee; not enough of my Little League experience has prepared me for FED ball.

-LL