Fair or Good?

[JJ]

I mean let's be honest here . . . all said, the war was fought over financial issues more than anything else.

Tee [/B]

Hmmm..I thought it was all about oil...
JJ
PS Oh, as umpires we strive to be fair, and we strive to be good. I always figured if you were good it showed you were fair (and mechanically sound).

[Edited by JJ on Dec 26th, 2005 at 10:14 PM]

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Walsh

Originally posted by Carl Childress

If those who read these posts were concerned that there were umpires who care who wins, there would have been discussion. My bet is that the general take is, sure, coaches think that, but we know better. That your statement did not generate comments is a good thing.

Mike

Mike: Coaches see more umpires than we do!

Many associations use coach evaluations as part of the umpire evaluations.

Our association assigns all umpires based on coach preference lists.

It is inescapable: There are bad umpires and good umpires. Most umpires are average. That's what "average" means.

It is silly for us to sit here and lord it over coaches. Why? Take a look at the questions "umpires" ask here. Take a look at the comments some posters make.

If a group of coaches in your association thinks that some umpires are not fair, it's probably 6, 2, and even they are right.

And remember the comment was: The "fairest" umpire I know. No remarks about my being the "fairest of them all." (grin)

Is there something between "fair" and "fairest"?

[Mike Walsh]

Mike [/B][/QUOTE][/i]Mike: Coaches see more umpires than we do!

Many associations use coach evaluations as part of the umpire evaluations.

Our association assigns all umpires based on coach preference lists.

It is inescapable: There are bad umpires and good umpires. Most umpires are average. That's what "average" means.

It is silly for us to sit here and lord it over coaches. Why? Take a look at the questions "umpires" ask here. Take a look at the comments some posters make.

If a group of coaches in your association thinks that some umpires are not fair, it's probably 6, 2, and even they are right.

And remember the comment was: The "fairest" umpire I know. No remarks about my being the "fairest of them all." (grin)

Is there something between "fair" and "fairest"? [/B][/QUOTE]
Fair enough. (Your question, that is). Their evaluations are important because of the impact they can have on us. That is inescapable. But average, by definition, should be good enough as an end result, though not as a goal. (I wrote the last sentence, but I'm not sure I buy it. But if it is false, everyone would have to be above average.) Now, if a coach makes a comment to me on the field that I am fair, it is meaningless. If he says so in an evaluation, it probably means he is telling my assignor that I am at best average, and passable, but that's all. If his evaluation says I'm good, I'd expect my assignor to interpret that as I'm above average.

The problem here is that fair has multiple relevant meanings. It can mean somewhere between good and bad, or it can mean that you don't cheat. But even if it means the latter, it doesn't mean that other umpires cheat. I expect that the coach's meaning would be more along the lines of, "I'd rather he was good, but his judgment leaves something to be desired. Nevertheless, he misses as many for the other team as he does for mine, so I can live with it. Hopefully, my team will win because we are better than the other team."

Mike

[GarthB]

"Someone said an umpire can be fair without being good. An umpire can also be good (great timing, good positioning, knowledge of the rules, great game control, etc.) and still not be fair! Fact is, the better the umpire, the easier it would be for him to shade in favor of one team or the other."

You are confusing a good "ball/strike" man with a good umpire. I don't care how good one is on the plate or with the rules or working the bases; if he ain't fair, he won't be known as good.

It's more than semantics, if one doesn't include "fair" as an element of being good, than he is neither fair nor good.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Thank you Garth, we've both said this multiple times now. An umpire will not be considered good if he does not umpire fairly. Some umpires believe that we can ignore some things in the name of fairness. Others believe that we can't. This is not an invitation to bicker about the expected call, it is simply an observation.

Joe West showed us that in order to be fair you have to call them correctly. A third base umpire in the CSF/ASU Regional did the same. That said, I know plenty of fair umpires (guys that call them in accordance with the rules and to the best of their ability) that will never make the leap to the next level because they simply aren't good enough.

I can teach umpires to be fair and I can hope that they become good. It is much more difficult the other way around. I know that sounds silly, but we have prisons full of those that are great crime planners but lousy at the execution of the act.

Carl, if those coaches think you are the fairest umpire in that part of the state, then you should be happy. You are enough of a wordsmith to know that it was a compliment and not an indictment of others. As others have suggested, take it for what it is worth.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Dec 27th, 2005 at 01:52 AM]

[JRutledge]

deleted by moderator

[Edited by bob jenkins on Dec 27th, 2005 at 10:25 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by JRutledge
deleted by moderator

[Edited by bob jenkins on Dec 27th, 2005 at 10:25 AM]

Jeff --

You've made three posts in this thread that I've had to delete. Please stop making these types of posts.

[D-Man]

I know in my heart I am always fair, but there were days where I definitely sucked.

I don't get tight with coaches. I agree that they can provide a unique insight, but not much more than an independent observer can. Who's gonna pay for an independent observer for every game?

We are as "good" to a coach as our last call with them. If a whacker goes the other way and you have to rely on the "offended" coach to get you to the next level, well, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

D

[RPatrino]

WWTB, I disagree.

We CANNOT teach honesty and integrity, which I believe is fundamental to being "fair". We CAN teach technique and mechanics, we can teach the rules, we can drill timing.

We can teach how to get in position to call a play, we can teach the "way" to call the play. We can teach the proper way to use the eyes, the timing, but we cannot teach judgement.

To me it is dishonest and unethical, if an umpire clearly sees the play as an out, but intentionally calls the runner safe. Does it happen, of course. Umpires that do this can never be "good" in my opinion.

Now, an umpire that mistakenly calls the runner safe, but knows after careful reflection that the runner was really out, then thats a kicked call. We've all had that happen. If you are "good", then you learn and move on.

Bob

[RPatrino]

PWL,

I love the song, I just don't get the relevance of the lyrics to the subject of the thread.

Bob

[RPatrino]

Haw, haw, haw, haw.....

Bob

[Tim C]

PWL:

Actually you would find that Jerry Jeff Walker wrote and recorded "Trashy Women" long before this incarnation.

But the lyrics still ring true.

Tee

[Carbide Keyman]

I find it hard to believe that with all the celebrities and pro atheletes you guys hang with that you ever have time to drop by The Forum.



Doug

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by RPatrino
WWTB, I disagree.

We CANNOT teach honesty and integrity, which I believe is fundamental to being "fair". We CAN teach technique and mechanics, we can teach the rules, we can drill timing.

We can teach how to get in position to call a play, we can teach the "way" to call the play. We can teach the proper way to use the eyes, the timing, but we cannot teach judgement.

To me it is dishonest and unethical, if an umpire clearly sees the play as an out, but intentionally calls the runner safe. Does it happen, of course. Umpires that do this can never be "good" in my opinion.

Now, an umpire that mistakenly calls the runner safe, but knows after careful reflection that the runner was really out, then thats a kicked call. We've all had that happen. If you are "good", then you learn and move on.

Bob

Fair enough, Bob...again, we have a problem with definitions and perception when discussing this topic.

As I said, I can teach an umpire how to call the play according to the rules - that would be fair. I can teach them that we don't "even up" tough calls or treat teams special. Instruction can be given to show them how to deal with volatile situations that need to be treated equitably. That is what I was referring to. Execution of these ideals is no different than proper mechanics.

I understand that we cannot groom integrity, if an umpire is predisposed otherwise. Some apples just taste bad. Your point that we can teach them proper positioning and how to deal with a kicked call are valid and I intimated that they are part of the equation. However, we can only provide so much to the newbie. We have to hope that they absorbed the fundamentals and will grow. The base block in all umpiring is fairness. Look at our young guys; they try to be fair to a fault. When they can add the hustle, timing, communication skills and desire to the mix, they may be considered good.

This is the time of year when I start planning the next training sessions. Hearing those first 'out' and 'safes', pulling the wrong hand down, folding the thumb back in...that's what it's all about. Happy New Year, Bob!