Civility

[JRutledge]

BlueLawyer,

I agree with just about everything you say. The problem is there are people that come here to pump up their abilities rather than add to the discussion. There are people here that do not understand that we all come from different backgrounds, ability levels, goals in officiating and just plain have a difference of opinion on issues which makes us neither right nor wrong on many issues. There has always been fighting on the internet and there always will be. That is what happens when people have funny names, do not have to stand by what they say by either us looking them in the eye or putting their name on their words. If you do stick around for longer than a month you will find this out. Right now the hot topic is the AMLU-Minor League issue. Before the season people were disputing the issue of a rising fastball. People say things online they would never say to a person when they are faced with that very person. This is just a nature of the beast. I have gone to other websites like this and officiating was not the topic and the very same type of personal attacks, disagreements and hyperbole takes place there as well. It will never fully change.

The main advice I can give to you is to read with caution, pick your battles and understand that not everyone is coming at this site with the same perspective. I have seen your post on every one of the sports boards on this site before. No matter what those criticisms still take place often and usually there disputes are carry-over discussions from past discussions.

Peace

[BlueLawyer]

Thanks for the kind words. All valid points.

I have someone in my association (my assignor and the rules interpreter, as it happens) with whom I regularly butt heads on umpiring issues and association business (I'm on the exec board- he's a former President). It usually works like this: he says something or posts something I disagree with. I argue against him with varying degrees of passion, depending on the issue and how wrong I believe him to be. We argue, sometimes he wins, and then we go have a beer and make up. The loser of the argument buys the first round. He is slowly getting an education in courtroom technique.

The relationship works, I think, because of mutual professional respect, necessity (we have to work together both on the field and off) and beer.

There are very few umpires I have met in person who I don't like, including the two or three MLB guys. Maybe the general lack of personal contact is what we lack, although I would still think we share a whole lot more in common than any thing that divides us.

By the way, my name is Zega. Only my mother and the judges I work with call me "Steve".

Strikes and outs!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

Thanks for the kind words. All valid points.

I have someone in my association (my assignor and the rules interpreter, as it happens) with whom I regularly butt heads on umpiring issues and association business (I'm on the exec board- he's a former President). It usually works like this: he says something or posts something I disagree with. I argue against him with varying degrees of passion, depending on the issue and how wrong I believe him to be. We argue, sometimes he wins, and then we go have a beer and make up. The loser of the argument buys the first round. He is slowly getting an education in courtroom technique.

The relationship works, I think, because of mutual professional respect, necessity (we have to work together both on the field and off) and beer.

There are very few umpires I have met in person who I don't like, including the two or three MLB guys. Maybe the general lack of personal contact is what we lack, although I would still think we share a whole lot more in common than any thing that divides us.

By the way, my name is Zega. Only my mother and the judges I work with call me "Steve".

Strikes and outs!

Funny you said this. I have in the past several years been on a board official’s association in multiple associations in each of the sports I officiate. The people I have dealt with are some of the biggest egos in officiating where I live. Almost every board has an assignor, state final official, college official, state clinician or one of the better officials and officials that are on the verge of working a state final or breaking the D1 level. All these egos bump heads from time to time. Even in the most intensive debates or discussions, usually the discussions maintain a professional tone and we all go out have drinks after the meeting. You will not be on many of the boards if someone does not respect you as an official. So even when things get contentious in our meetings, we all know that in that room everyone has given back a lot to the organization. Online that is very hard to translate and many of us have no idea what the other has done. There is not the same mutual respect. It is also very easy to claim you have done something and none of us will ever be able to verify in the first place. This is why one of the primary reasons I come here is to talk about something I love and to pass time and to find entertainment in the conversation. It is fun to talk officiating even when there is some conflict. I also do not come here with the expectation that I am going to hear something or discuss an issue that will be new to me or that I cannot discuss off this board. This can be a great resource at times but ultimately what I learn from is the veterans I work with and the camps I attend.

Peace

[TussAgee11]

This is only natural. To be an umpire, you have to be authoratative. Bunch of "Type As". Never get along all at once. Shouldn't be that way, not an excuse to some posters, but I'm afraid its just a fact.

[BigUmp56]

Jeff:

I have to say that I was impressed by your last post. It was probably the most concise and meaningful post I've seen you write. You're absolutely right, in that it's very much about simple respect. I don't care if they like it or not, but there has to be a certain amount of accountibility when information is imparted incorrectly by certain individuals. What sets the more prominent members of this board apart from a very select narrow minded individuals is their ability to accept a measure of accountibilty for the information they impart. I respect, and think most of us resect, a man who is willing to say he make a mistake. We have a few that I believe argue for the sake of arguing. These individuals could care less whether or not we respect them, and in turn afford no one else any respect.


Tim.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Jeff:

I have to say that I was impressed by your last post. It was probably the most concise and meaningful post I've seen you write. You're absolutely right, in that it's very much about simple respect. I don't care if they like it or not, but there has to be a certain amount of accountibility when information is imparted incorrectly by certain individuals. What sets the more prominent members of this board apart from a very select narrow minded individuals is their ability to accept a measure of accountibilty for the information they impart. I respect, and think most of us resect, a man who is willing to say he make a mistake. We have a few that I believe argue for the sake of arguing. These individuals could care less whether or not we respect them, and in turn afford no one else any respect.

I also hear a lot of this "admit a mistake" stuff from you and others. How are you going to make a mistake on an opinion? I think opinions are the essence of this place. Even when we talk about many rules there are interpretations that are given and vary by whom you work for and where you live. I know just where I live and what part of the state you are in there are many philosophies that vary. Tip O'Neill used to say, "Politics is local." Officiating is the same way. And when we talk about things often it is not going to resonate with everyone when we all have very different experiences. Having met and worked with officials from many surrounding states, it is very common that we all do not share the same attitudes and expectations in our officiating. I remember conversations here about keeping players in the batter's box brought many points of views and experiences and all were not the same.

Peace

[SAump]

Thank YOU BLUEUMP, your post was a breath of fresh air. Nice try.

A finer kettle has never been posted on this website.

I think I just read the Hippocratic Oath.