My thread about fair/good started out ok. But it ended in a slugfest.

The thread is closed, but the crud is there for all to see.

Consequently, around midnight tomorrow I intend to delete my original post, which will erase everything, as you know.

If you want to keep your posts, you have until then to save. Don't forget: You have to save eash page separately.

Oh, I'd rather be fair and good than good and fair.

Rut: I wouldn't go around disparaging white people. After all, it <i>was</i> predominately white lawmakers who provided the laws that ensure equal rights for all.

It still is.

Deja vu, all over again...

"As an umpire, you can't be good without being fair. You can certainly be fair and not considered good (no pun intended).

I've witnessed dozens of fair umpires who "even up" calls or compensate for a partner that they disagree with. In my experience, I value the partner who is talented enough to realize that the game is not always fair. Some teams (and umpires) get screwed.

In regards to the compliment you received, it was certainly meant in the spirit of professionalism. I've only encountered two coaches that tried to blast me during the pre-game. One never got to see the inside of his dugout and the other walked away feeling pretty ridiculous. Coaches love to kiss the butt of the PU in the Championship game. I'm sure you did a fair job, and all words being equal - I'll take good any day."

Carl, your line about being fair and good not good and fair is intereseting. But again, it's in the interpretation of what we consider good and or fair. I define 'good' as being the epitome of professionalism. In simpler terms - the guy they want out there when the big game is on the line. We expect good umpires to be fair but that's not the case when switched. You may be the exception and this is not a poke at the expeted call philosophy. I truly understand that like the sheriff of yore, being fair is noble. Being good keeps you from getting killed, though.

Anyway, I'm sorry that the last thread got messed up. I tried to toss my serious thoughts in at the beginning. As Paul Harvey would say, you know the rest of the story.

To The Forum:

Can anyone truly be this dumb?

Interesting
 

The problem in understanding history is that too many people only want to understand the part that concurs their argument - ala the post above.

Our politicians in Washington suffer the same amnesia on a daily basis and its sad.

For those of us who are students of history as it actually occured, Carl you were totally accurate in your statement about the history.

Maybe JR hasn't read the rest of the history behind the civil rights movements or either he simply doesn't want to acknowledge it accurately.

Having been born and lived in the south for my entire life, we learned it at an early age and the thing about history is that is doesn't change ...

As far as baseball Garth said it best, I'd rather be good any day.

Thanks
David

[Edited by David B on Dec 26th, 2005 at 12:23 PM]

Why is "white" not capitalized, but "Black" is? A bit of racism I would say. Whitey doesn't deserve proper noun status.

To attempt to get back to the subject of thread and keep this one from being locked, I'll reiterate from the previous thread: One can be fair and not good, but to be good, one needs to be fair.

Carl,

I am not trying to insult you but the only thing dumber than the stuff that Rut writes is your question. Rut continually sets new standards for dumbness. Why should you or anyone else be surprised when he writes something incredibly dumb? That's normal behavior for him. What would truly be shocking is if he went on a streak of intelligent writing.

"Rut: I wouldn't go around disparaging white people. After all, it was predominately white lawmakers who provided the laws that ensure equal rights for all."

And it was Southern white lawmakers who refused to ratify the Constitution if it contained an Amendment to abolish slavery. It too 78 years, and the most horrible war this nation suffered, to ratify the 13th Amendment. And another 76 years to do away with "legal" segregation.

Bob

You're right. No one disputes that. But since I know of no legislature or congress since the War Between the States with a majority of African-Americans, I'm sure my statement is accurate. White lawmakers, from <i>wherever</i> in this country, passed the laws that "ensure equal rights for all [races]." You'd agree to that, I'm sure.

Hmmm,
 

Carl wrote: ". . . legislature or congress since the War Between the States . . . "

Isn't that really a war called "The War of Northern Agression".

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

Tee

Re: Hmmm,
 

I love it when idiots (here in the south) try to say the war
was not fought over slavery. Sure, there were
other considerations, but slavery was certainly
one of the biggest reasons.
And yes,Tee, it was the "War of Northern Agression".
At least that's how it's refered to around here.

Chuck


Edited for clarity.

To be fair, this thread about umpring is not looking good.


Since many of us have crossed swords with him in the past, can't we just agree that Rut bit off more than he could chew here? What started as his naivety about NCAA baseball coaches turned into a tirade about black history. We need to learn that he will never be able to debate well enough to make it worthwhile.


The topic that was established asks us to consider whether we feel honored by the tag "good" or "fair". Like a fine wine, it can't be considered so unless it is balanced. An umpire is likewise ajudged "good" if part of his skills includes an ability to be "fair". But, to be "good" he must possess terrific timing, communication, hustle, desire and rules knowledge.

Is it 2006 yet?

Actually, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was the breakthrough legislation.

Concerning baseball: I would think I have written enough about the relationship between umpires and coaches in our Youth Leagues so that members of The Forum would understand that coaches and umpires have much different relationships down here at the Tip of Texas from those in other places. We just flat don't have the adversarial relationship I read about here.

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.

Guys, when I meet with coaches, it is a GIVEN that I am good. They know that, the fans know that, I know that. The fathers of many of these Youth League coaches also know that because I worked their games decades ago.

But the statement that I hoped would engender comments was just passed by.

I said I told my boss what the coach had said. Then I wrote: "Coach Allen said it meant they knew I didn't care who won. I said it meant they knew umpires who did."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

[i] But the statement that I hoped would engender comments was just passed by. I said I told my boss what the coach had said. Then I wrote: "Coach Allen said it meant they knew I didn't care who won. I said it meant they knew umpires who did."

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

Re: Hmmm,
 

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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Walsh

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: But the statement that I hoped would engender comments was just passed by. I said I told my boss what the coach had said. Then I wrote: "Coach Allen said it meant they knew I didn't care who won. I said it meant they knew umpires who did." 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 [/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

<b>"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."</b>

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.

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]

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.

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

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

PWL,

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

Bob

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

Bob

Hmmm,
 

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

WOW !!!!!!!!
 

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

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!