Jim,

No offense, but Brenly hasn't been there for around a year--Bob Melvin is the manager of the D'Backs now.


My two cents on the whole criticizing thing: most of us that post on this site are amateur umpires. By talking, even critically, about the actions of the MLB umpires, we can only stand to learn. Just remember two things: 1) the MLB guys, in most cases, are the best in our business, but 2) they're human and will make mistakes just like the rest of us, but probably not as often.

I will accept that our government only has the powers that we, the people, give it. You may even be right about my ignorance of our constitution. You certainly have the right to express your opinion of my ignorance. And, until your opinions about my ignorance, of which you've only touched on one of many, defame my character or cause me to suffer damages, I have no complaint. You are certainly correct that I may “expose” my ignorance in public. But, at this point we disagree.

It is indeed my right to “expose” my ignorance in pubic or in private, including within this forum. I am a member of this forum, no more so or less than, but just like, you. I am empowered to “expose” any and all of my ignorance in any public forum, for it is my “inalienable right.” I am also empowered to “expose” any and all of my ignorance in any private forum, for it is my “right” of membership. And, until my expression of my own ignorance crosses the line of defamation in public, or exceeds the limits of my membership in private, I will continue to do so.

And I did not, sir, miss a single day of eighth grade in social studies or in any other subject. You are out of line when you claim otherwise. I demand that you correct yourself. I can offer proof of my attendance; to wit, a little silver star pasted on my eighth grade report card, which is still in my possession. I will give that I was probably in the corner of the classroom not paying too much attention, but I did not miss that day. Ha!

Cav

Could we give up the political BS and talk about umpires and umpiring? Please?

Since this post is still here he has the right to criticize & evaluate MLB umpires on this board by the authority of the board owner & his representatives, the moderators.

Or you can look at it this way,
 

"It is not people's jobs on this board to criticize and evaluate MLB umpires."

I cannot agree with this thought.

If that were true we could not allow any critical thought.

To criticize an actor you would have had to been not only an actor but an award winning actor.

To criticize a writer you would have to have not only been a writer but an award winning author.

To criticize a political decision you have have to have served at the highest level of government.

IN FACT I make the following statement:

Posters on this board ARE THE ONLY people who can fairly criticize MLB umpires.

Why you may ask?

1) Any level of professional umpire that would criticize another professional umpire would be suspended or, most likely, fired.

2) Any upper level college umpire that would criticize another umpire (professinal or D1) would be severly dealt with by Dave Yeast. Afterall, D1 umpires think they are as good as minor league umpires.

3) Any Little League umpire that would criticize an MLB umpire is . . . well, after watching the LLWS not qualified to comment even on the work of Smitty's.

That leaves a number of internet based umpires (I say that because the internet is a media outlet) that can truely express thougths ands judgements about the cream of the crop umpires working MLB.

Let me take this one final step further:

If anyone of us (yrs trly, LDUB, Bob Jenkins, Ozzy etc.) where placed at first base in an MLB game TOMORROW with a seasoned professional crew, guess what?

We would be considered the "Smitty" working over their head.

Every time I have talked with Gary Darling, Mike Winters, Ted Barrett, Tim Tschida, Dale Scott or Jim Joyce and talked in critical terms of performance they have NEVER taken offense.

They just consider the source.

T

If it is not our job to criticize these guys, what is our job? To sit here like sheep and agree wholeheartedly with every call these guys make, no matter how correct or incorrect it may be? As someone else mentioned, by criticizing we are learning a little bit ourselves. No one is saying Dana should be put to death for what he did, it is just being suggested that what he did is not becoming of a major league umpire. Our naivete and inexperience is part of what makes our arguments in threads so intriguing- if you asked professional (MiLB and higher) what they thought of most of the stuff we said, they would probably find most of it laughable because they are more experienced and have seen it many, MANY times more than we have.

bob brenly is the cubs color commentator

[/B][/QUOTE]
bob brenly is the cubs color commentator [/B][/QUOTE]

And he really sucks at it. I cannot stand the Cubs TV commentators this year. It amazes me how little you can know about baseball and still coach a MLB team.

bob brenly is the cubs color commentator [/B][/QUOTE]

And he really sucks at it. I cannot stand the Cubs TV commentators this year. It amazes me how little you can know about baseball and still coach a MLB team.



[/B][/QUOTE]

yeah...he only won the World Series...what the hell does he know.

It's not my job either to complain about MLB umpires.

It's my JOB to accurately forecast sales and inventory levels for a retail company.... So what.

It's my HOBBY to read, write, listen, and learn here on a PUBLIC internet posting board about anything and everything officiating related, including pointing out where even the highest of high MLB umpires may or may not have crossed the line as far as behavior goes, or his calling ability goes.

It's not YOUR job to tell me or anyone else what we can and cannot say - it is the job of the moderators of this site to do so. Since that job is taken, I humbly suggest you buzz off.

My bad but when I saw the replay it looked like it said Brenly accross the back of the managers uniform. Arizona is not a team I follow at all. To any extent, I still stick by my post that Demuth was not at fault.

Agree with most
 

Except the ignoramus that thinks being critical of others is a right. (I assume constitutional because God didn't establish such a right in the Ten Commandments.)

This is the very attitude that has created the degredation of our social relationships, and surely of sportsmamship, in gerenal. It is often what lawyers espouse, and probably why they are often unliked - they take and impose upon those around them.

Reversely (think about it and I hope you agree), rights are not what you take or demand for yourself. (How can you possibly get along with others by taking or demanding priviledges that adversely affect others?)

RIGHTS are what you afford others. (Give. Not take.) It is significantly more than semmantics - it is a fundamental difference in your attitude.

Ahh
 

But they were being wronged.

Different situation from observing a sporting event or annoying others and saying it is your right to do so.

You obviously have not thought about it, or done your reading.

When, in our Declaration of Independence, we said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." we specifically did not include the right to criticise sporting officials... only oppressors (takers).

And as Thomas Paine said:
A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.

A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing.

...That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual,...

I surely have not stated the case as eloquently, or as thoroughly, as did Paine. But, taking Thomas Paine to be an accepted authority, I fail to see how criticizing sports officials or performing activities intended to offend and take from others are rights of intellectuality, individuality, security or protection.

Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison (collectively known as Publius) wrote the Federalist Papers and were primarily concerned with the construction and authorities of Republican government - not individual rights or even the aforementioned civil rights as applicable to an individual.

I think my comments were right on and that you, and ignoramous, are wrong. In most cases, ignorance is not a crime. So, there is still hope.
;)

Personally I am far more Jeffersonian. DTTB, thank you for doing this, as I was going to research it after work.

I do believe I have the natural, inalienable right to yell my butt off if I think someone blew a call, blew a gasket, or f'd up through lack of effort/hustle.

Tony, I think my friend David Adams was right about you. You sure do like to hear yourself talk, don't you? :p