another view

[CJN]

what I'm talking about is like what Brad Lidge did after he gave up the home run to Pujols, he stood at his locker for waves of media and gave them sincere answers. Do you think that is what he wanted to be doing? But then compare that to the Eddings interview after Game 2 ALCS, he sits protected by his supervisor and allows only minimal questions but never owns up to his mistake -- all he does is make excuses and after his set amount of questions has been reached he packs up and goes into the private room. You didn't see Brad Lidge go into hiding after the game he did took a bunch of questions and didn't make excuses. I'll acknowledge that you are right about Bonds and McGwire, but I think that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. I will stick to my guns in saying that umpires need to take responsibility for their mistakes and learn from them not just make excuses.

[Sal Giaco]

CJN,
I think you are comparing apples and oranges when talking about the media's accessibility to players vs officials. If you look at the other main sports, their officials are not easily accessible either.

My guess is that the various leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA) make the decisions, not the individual umpire or official, on who is granted access and who is not. I'm sure Doug Eddings was extremely careful on what to say, especially in the presence of his crew chief and supervisor.

I also bet MLB umpires have very strict guidelines on if, when and how they should interact with the media. Basically, they do as they are told. If there is a problem with media accessibilty of umpires, take it up with MLB - they probably call most of the shots.

[phillips.alex]

i think there is a problem with mlb/nfl/nba not allowing umpires to talk to the media....Like some have already pointed out, many players refuse interviews....it is their right. The same should be said for umpires. If they want to talk, they should be able to talk....

If i was eddings, i would have wanted to go openly on tv, explain exactly what i saw and what i did, and maybe even say "irreguardless of whether or not my mechanic is right, the ball was declared live, and it was the catchers responsibility to either tag the batter/runner or throw to first. When in doubt, make the safe play."

He could even own up to the fact that his strike call is irregular, and a two-handed swinging strike call is a bad idea, and maybe he would change it. It would keep the guys on espn from knocking him so hard later, and shed some light as to the actual situation, including what was said. This is not available, no matter how far the the camera zooms in.

just my two cents....

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

There is a major difference between accountability to the league and accesibility to the media. These umpires undergo intense scrutiny of their calls, behavior and demeanor. Recognizing that the average amateur umpire doesn't like explaining his calls to the fan behind the screen, why would you think a professional would welcome biased media questioning? Most beat reporters bleed their team colors. Do you really believe that Eddings, West, et al would be treated fairly by the Yankee, Angel or Astro media?

[BigUmp56]

MLB does have an official policy in place for allowing access to their umpires after a game.
MLBUM:

XV. DEALING WITH PRESS AND MEDIA; INTERVIEWS; VCRs

Major League Baseball's policy regarding interviews and dealing with the press is specified in the Basic Agreement, Articles 9.E.1 and 9.E.2, which state as follows:

1. An umpire shall not speak with a member of the media regarding a controversial call, play or ejection in a game for a period of fifteen (15) minutes following the completion of the game. After the fifteen minute post-game cooling off period, a Crew Chief (or another crew member, with the consent of, and in the presence of, the Crew Chief) may on the day of the game discuss a rule interpretation, an unusual play, or a controversial call, play or ejection with a pool reporter. Otherwise, there shall be no public comment by umpires on matters governed by this Article.

9.E.1 unless and until public relations support has been sought and received pursuant to Article 9.E.2, below.

2. Should a controversial call, play or ejection, or other urgent dispute occur during a game, the Office of the Commissioner shall, on an on-call basis, promptly provide to the umpire and crew involved press and public relations advice and assistance in responding to media inquiries.

Prior to writing a report or speaking with the media after a game concerning a controversial incident, it is suggested that umpires review video footage of the situation and discuss the matter within the crew.

All clubs have been instructed to have functioning VCRs and tapes available in each umpire dressing room for review after every game. If there are any problems in this regard, the Umpiring Department should be contacted immediately. Tapes are provided for post-game review by the umpires and can be removed from the umpires' room in unique circumstances.


Tim.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by phillips.alex
If i was eddings, i would have wanted to go openly on tv, explain exactly what i saw and what i did, and maybe even say "irreguardless of whether or not my mechanic is right, the ball was declared live...."

That's the best argument for NOT allowing Eddings to "wing it" himself with the media, because (1) he would have embarrassed himself with poor grammar ("irregardless" is not a word) and (2) he would have lied (the ball wasn't clearly "declared" anything, that's the whole crux of the biscuit on that call. It appeared to all, based on Eddings' hammer signal, that the batter was "declared" out.)

[LMan]

Originally posted by CJN
But don't you guys think that the umpires should be made more available to the media, I mean like the article says the players don't run and hide when they make up a mistake or give up a big run. And when the players talk the questions aren't determined or immediately protected by mangers if a reporter asks a tough question. Also the players take responsibility for their actions/mistakes while the umpires just make excuses. Now don't get me wrong I know the umpires have a tough job and they are bound to make mistakes, all I'm asking is that umpires start taking responsibilty and not copping out or hiding.

....you have never seen a Budweiser "Leon" commercial, have you.....

[phillips.alex]

irregardless is most definately a word. it means regardless. look in a dictionary, there's a whole bunch of other words as well. In case you can't find one, try merriamwebster.com

alex

[GarthB]

Originally posted by phillips.alex
irregardless is most definately a word. it means regardless. look in a dictionary, there's a whole bunch of other words as well. In case you can't find one, try merriamwebster.com

alex

The correct word is "regardless." "Irregardless" is not in my dictionary. It may have been added to some dictionaries because of its all too common usuage. This happens in language sometimes. Sometimes the illiterate win.

Here is the entry from the American Hertiage Dictionary:

ADVERB: Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.






[Edited by GarthB on Oct 26th, 2005 at 05:40 PM]

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by CJN
what I'm talking about is like what Brad Lidge did after he gave up the home run to Pujols, he stood at his locker for waves of media and gave them sincere answers. Do you think that is what he wanted to be doing? But then compare that to the Eddings interview after Game 2 ALCS, he sits protected by his supervisor and allows only minimal questions but never owns up to his mistake -- all he does is make excuses and after his set amount of questions has been reached he packs up and goes into the private room. You didn't see Brad Lidge go into hiding after the game he did took a bunch of questions and didn't make excuses. I'll acknowledge that you are right about Bonds and McGwire, but I think that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. I will stick to my guns in saying that umpires need to take responsibility for their mistakes and learn from them not just make excuses.

1. The game is about the players and not the officials.

2. The vast vast majority of time the officials are right.

3. When they are proven wrong it take super slow motion replay from numerous angles to show that they were wrong.

4. I've yet to see a bad call, bad bounce, ball lost in the sun, bad luck etc. etc. cost a team a game.

5. With respect to Edding's if the catcher tags the batter there's no controversey. Also you might recall Crede hit an 0-2 for the double that drove in the winning run. I didn't read anything about that stupid pitch!!!!

[bkbjones]

Originally posted by GarthB

The correct word is "regardless." "Irregardless" is not in my dictionary. It may have been added to some dictionaries because of it's all too common usuage. This happens in language sometimes. Sometimes the illiterate win.

Here is the entry from the American Hertiage Dictionary:

ADVERB: Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Garth,
It's like feeding a troll to argue regardless/irregardless with someone who cannot correctly spell definitely.

Perhaps he was correct when he said, "Irregardless is definately a word." Now if we can find a definition (or is is defanition? or defination?) for definately...

It has been contrary to protocol to use "irregardless" in pleadings/arguments, both oral and written, before the U.S. Supreme Court. I do not know if this will continue under Chief Justice Roberts – but it would be good if the policy was continued.

[LMan]

Originally posted by phillips.alex
irregardless is most definately a word. it means regardless. look in a dictionary, there's a whole bunch of other words as well. In case you can't find one, try merriamwebster.com

alex

good job, sport ...... [eyeroll]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Lost in all of this is the fact that even if irregardless were a real word, it would most definitely NOT be spelled "irreguardless", as in Alex's original post.

[phillips.alex]

thanks for ripping into me for a simple spelling error on definitely.....that was obviously the point of my post on what eddings should have said. Also, i will stick by the FACT that irregardless is still a word. Even in your beloved american heritage dictionary. you can either visit their website, or the website of any other reputable dictionary (oxford, merriamwebster, etc.) and you will find the word "irregardless"
If you pick up the new version (2004) of the american heritage dictionary, you will find that irregardless also somehow made it into the print version, with a number of other "new" words. Get with the times. Language changes, and unfortunately, your disregard of this fact has ruined the original post about baseball umpires and the media. And please never send me an e-mail again, unless it is about something worth talking about, like baseball.

alex phillips

[GarthB]

Originally posted by phillips.alex
thanks for ripping into me for a simple spelling error on definitely.....that was obviously the point of my post on what eddings should have said. Also, i will stick by the FACT that irregardless is still a word. Even in your beloved american heritage dictionary. you can either visit their website, or the website of any other reputable dictionary (oxford, merriamwebster, etc.) and you will find the word "irregardless"
If you pick up the new version (2004) of the american heritage dictionary, you will find that irregardless also somehow made it into the print version, with a number of other "new" words. Get with the times. Language changes, and unfortunately, your disregard of this fact has ruined the original post about baseball umpires and the media. And please never send me an e-mail again, unless it is about something worth talking about, like baseball.

alex phillips

Okay, define "irregardless".

Without regard? No, that's regardless. It must mean without without regard.

Oh, I've seen "irregardless" in some dictionaries. In each case, however, it is pointed out that it isn't a "standard" word or it's usage comes from a misunderstanding of what "regardless" means. And yes, it is relatively new to dictionaries. As I said, the illiterate win a few from time to time. You must be proud.

BTW: I never sent you an email.