boyinnblue24
 

Boy you can really jump on on someone who you think is young and inexperienced. Glad I am not one. Am new to board but have over 17 yr experience. I can sympathize with this young lad as I am the assigner in my area with 60+ umps , the majority of which are teenagers. How about laying off some ??

Ump29, are you addressing this to an individual or the members of this forum in general?

To any and all who have jumped all over him.

So....you're saying you want us to jump on you instead, huh?:D

I jumped all over him at first, not because he is young, but because of the way he came off at first. He is 16, and claimed to have "a lot" of experience, which is just not really possible. Since then, he and I have shared many friendly PMs, and he understands why he got dumped on now, and everything is fine. So, why do you want to keep it going, after it has all pretty much settled down?

Tee, frankly boyinblue24 is like most of us where at that age. We are all far different umpires at our ages then we were then. I know I wish I had someone like you to offer me sage advice when I was in my mid 20's and just starting out.

Another important point. Most of us who improve year after year, even in our AARP years subcribe to the theory of listen, watch, learn...before we speak.

Tim, I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to Ump29. I know you weren't piling on. I was posting at the same time you were, and hadn't read yours yet.

No one is jumping on any new poster because of age or experience. Several people jump on new posters because of attitude and assumptions.

What happens next will determine whether or not littleboyblue actually learns something about umpiring.

For example:

There were two young umpires who came to the internet. They both had attitude and said some really stupid stuff. They both got jumped by 40 umpires.

One decided to read more than write. The other continued to spout off on things of which he was ignorant.

One licked his wounds and worked on learning from those who jumped him. The other attacked would be mentors.

One did his homework and worked on a professional, confident
presence. The other customized his uniform and wore double wrist bands because they looked "cool."

One became near expert in his rules knowledge and mechanics. The other continues to argue when poster attempt to correct him.

One graduated as an Honor Grad at Evans and will be attending PBUC this March. The other still whines that he is being picked on.

We're waiting to see which of these two young umpires Little Boy Blue decides to emulate.

There are way too many references to "piling on" for a message board of predominantly males such as this......;)

yuck...yuck...yuck...yuck.

I've never had any problems with Boyinblue. I've taken s*** from a lot of veterans over the past for no good reason, and I doubt he has done anything to deserve it either. What seems like arguing to the paranoid posters on here is actually discussing. What's wrong with coming up with an argument to a rule or idea, and then a counter argument and another counter argument? That is the way one gets to understand, rather than simply knowing.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion and wanting to voice it. It becomes a problem here when an extrememly young umpire asks a question and then argues against the entire message board community that the answer he recieved is incorrect.

I don't know if you understand how ridiculous the statement that you've just made is. Maybe you know it though.


Tim.

Are you serious?

So, you think that if one asks a question and gets the correct answer it is then perfectly normal to argue and present a "counter" to the correct answer, get the correct answer again, argue again, get the correct answer again and then argue again?

Where hell do you come from? Oh, that's right, Canada.

God Save the Queen.

What I am saying is that it doesn't hurt to present your arguments, even when you know they're wrong. That helps to give one a deeper understanding of the game, verify that the arguments are correct, and understand why something is a certain way.

To be honest though I don't know what went on, but I don't think it should be taken so sensitively if someone is politely arguing.

That's ridiculous. All that does is:
1) Piss off people who have taken the time to post a <b>correct</b> answer and maybe look up the accompanying rules citations also.
2) Totally confuse other new officials or casual fans(example--me) reading the forum.

You'd be much better off going into more detail as to why the answers given were correct.

Arguing when you know you are wrong is just plain stoopid in a forum of this type.

if you KNOW your arguments are wrong, why would you argue them? like JR said, it just confuses people and makes you look like the north end of a south bound donkey.

if you want a deeper understanding of your wrong statement, instead of stating it as fact, ask "why is this (my point/argument) wrong?" bam! there's your deeper understanding. ask more- tell less. put your incorrect statement in a form of a question instead of aruging a wrong statement as fact. arguing a wrong statement just makes you look incredibly dumb.

here's a little something to try- any time you give advice on any forum, accompany it with a rule citation, casebook citation, or interpretation. therefore, you have some substance to any argument. Some cases the rulebook doesn't cut it since it's not detailed enough, that's when pro interps and pro school training and guys with connections will fill us in (see: Tim_C, GarthB, lawump).