|
Fri Jan 11, 2002, 08:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
This from Jim Porter's recent thread on returning
My Umpire-in-Chief was the plate umpire. He started right in on me with that call when we talked next to his van as he took off his gear. I didn't want to talk about it there, but he's kind of an old stubborn fella, and he loudly expressed his dislike for the call. The aforementioned statement got me thinking about: What do you do when you are assigned with someone whom you dislike? In all walks of life there are certain people whom we just can't get along with (for whatever reason), however, we have to learn how to deal with them. We all have jobs, and I bet we could name "right off the top of our heads" those individuals that make us "cringe" when we have to deal with them because we know it will not be easy. In addition, especially when dealing with a "top dog" or UIC in a way it's similar to dealing with one's boss. As we all know, regardless of our feelings towards one another, it's very important that we get along on the Field and cover each other's back I'm certain when we played the game, there were individuals we didn't like and hang out with after the game, but when we crossed the white lines we were one. Therefore, what do you do when you are assigned a game with someone you dislike or do not get along with? Suppose as in Jim's case that partner is the UIC? Here's 3 categories I would like comments on: 1. There are those partner's whom we do not get along with but are good umpires meaning they conduct themselves professionally on the field. 2. Probably the worse case scenario - We do not get along with a partner who happens to be terrible. In other words not only do we work the game with "Smitty" but we can't stand him either. We find ourselves constantly "backing him up" but when the role is reversed "Smitty" will stab us in the back 3. Probably the hardest to get around - We do not get along with the UIC or Assignor who also happens to be a "top dog" - Do we just suck it up and go with the flow or do we shop around for another association. What if this association is the only game in town I look forward to your input - Thanks Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth 
|
|
Fri Jan 11, 2002, 04:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
Pete;
I have never been faced with choice 1, an umpire who was competent that I could not stand. Furthermore, I have not been faced with choice 3, the assignor/partner who I could not stand. If I was faced with choice 3 and could not find another association, I would retire immediately. For choice 2, the Smitty, I face on rare occasions. Since I am senior in my association, the Smittys are junior to me. If at all possible, I stick the Smittys on the plate and go camp in right field between innings. For one in particular, I tell him before the game, that if he starts any problems, I will over rule him. Some of our senior umpires tell this umpire that if he throws someone out, they will review it and put him back in the game if they do not agree. This Smitty is a real piece of work. Peter
|
|
Sat Jan 12, 2002, 12:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Isn't PU the UIC in a two-man game
Quote:
I have had some real questionable partners but I seem to be able to officiate with just about anyone. Most of the games I do are at the Connie Mack level and the better umpires are usually my partners. Usually I like to stay after a doubleheader and have a beer or soda while just unwinding. I prefer to be with umpires who want to shoot the breeze for a while. Coincidentally they are usually the more competent guys. Jim/NYC
|
|
Sat Jan 12, 2002, 12:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
To answer your question;
In #1 there is one umpire I hate working with. We speak off the field and at meetings, but on the field forget it. He is a popular umpire. I call him to myself the "people's umpire". Great strike calls, long pregame with a whole speech thrown in, all the proper signals, tries to look real professional, he puts on a show. However, to the trained umpire his mechanics are not up to the show he puts on and he totally blew a couple of rules,i.e. called a batter out for throwing the bat a second time. He didn't want to change the calls and the coaches were alright with them. Whatever, I stuck with my partner rather than start something where there wasn't a problem. He always has an excuse to do the plate during school games with ratings. So when I do school with him I dress for the bases, endure his pregame, and say goodbye at the end of the game. I'll go along with his exaggerated signals and play his game and just live with it. In #2, at least with school, there is no choice, I grin and bear it. I hope for the best and don't expect good ratings that day. I try to avoid situations that get me into trouble knowing there will be no support. Outside of school I try to avoid it and hope if I'm stuck don't need an escort of the field. In #3, if it is a top dog I don't like, I go for the A+ game, try to be perfect in every way, as my way of saying the hell with you. Fortunately, there are several choices in my area, so I don't have to worry not getting along.
|
|
Sat Jan 12, 2002, 10:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
Well.....
#1 = I go out and do my best, and enjoy the game. Then I go home and enjoy what is left of the day
#2 = I won't work with this type ( . ) They get paid as much as me; so, they do their share of the game. Or, they can leave and I'll get both fees for doing both coverages. re: "We find ourselves constantly "backing him up" but when the role is reversed "Smitty" will stab us in the back" I've done enough games, with enough different partners to become a fairly quick study of whether a partner is a "slug"; or, a "stand-up" type of umpire. If they "won't" do their job rest assured that the assignor will know real soon about this. If it is just a matter of personalities; or, any occasional mental lapse - oh well, well get through it somehow. #3 = I have never had a problem with my assigners. I just try to do my best at whatever games I am assigned. [Edited by Rog on Jan 13th, 2002 at 11:14 PM]
|
|
Sun Jan 13, 2002, 06:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
1. There are those partner's whom we do not get along with but are good umpires meaning they conduct themselves professionally on the field.
Outside of a few personal friends in the activity, I don't care about any relationship with another umpire, other than professional. If my partner is honest, competent and acts professionally, he could be Peter Osborne and I would be able to work with him. 2. Probably the worse case scenario - We do not get along with a partner who happens to be terrible. In other words not only do we work the game with "Smitty" but we can't stand him either. We find ourselves constantly "backing him up" but when the role is reversed "Smitty" will stab us in the back. Again, personal like and dislikes are left in the parking lot. When I am assigned to work with a Smitty I take whatever position is his weakest and hustle my butt 110% to cover my responsibilities while trying to see what I can to help him, should he ask. I do not make comments to the coaches or react to his mistakes negatively and I don't ask him for help. If his performance lands us in a sh#t house, I write it up and suggest to the assignor that he would probably work better with another partner in the future. 3. Probably the hardest to get around - We do not get along with the UIC or Assignor who also happens to be a "top dog" - Do we just suck it up and go with the flow or do we shop around for another association. What if this association is the only game in town. Why are we having such trouble "getting along?" Even if a so-called top dog is an a$$, there are usually good reasons he is a top dog, and those will be displayed on the field. As long as he performs well and you perform well what's the problem. You don't need to take him home after the game. If you have allowed a personality problem to become an issue with the assignor, solve it off the field. Talk to him, calmly and reasonably. Then dispell any performance issues he may have on the field. If he remains such an a$$ that he will not properly utilize a talented and qualified umpire in the face of the shortage of competent umpires, don't worry. He won't remain an assignor for long.
|
|
Mon Jan 14, 2002, 12:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is, indeed, the type of personal insult most moderators wish to rid their boards of........... Apparently the eUmpire staff not only promotes it but feels the need to initiate personal attack. I hope all understand your post, Garth, for what it truly is............ And soon I would expect you to claim innocence and speak of how your staff is regularly attacked, and how your comments must be restrained to proper conduct as a moderator.......... Wouldn't it be better as a moderator to just initiate some good baseball content---as Pete has tried to do in initiating the thread? What a joke.......I'll give you credit for being better on the field. Just my opinion, Freix
|
|
Mon Jan 14, 2002, 02:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Mon Jan 14, 2002, 03:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I thought in the past that he was a moderator and I was not aware of any change. Perhaps I was wrong to start with....... That should then, indeed, authorize his "right" to initiate personal attack through insult. Hmmmm....????? Just my opinion, Freix
|
|
Mon Jan 14, 2002, 03:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A representative of the OfficialForum technical staff does check in from time to time to make sure the forum guidelines are followed. Somehow, I doubt an off-the-cuff, toungue-in-cheek comment between old rivals can be considered a violation of forum guidelines. [Edited by Jim Porter on Jan 15th, 2002 at 03:08 AM]
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Mon Jan 14, 2002, 09:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've said it before...........
It's a shame that the interaction on the boards revolves around the written word. I'll bet that if we could get Jim, Garth, Steve, and Peter assigned to be a four man crew for a weekend high level tournament it would probably go down as one of the better officiated series we could witness. However, if we sent them down as correspondents, handling the games by trying to inter-act as reporters, they would probably kill each other. I learn lots from the messages, I wish the messengers could co-exist. senior
|
|
Mon Jan 14, 2002, 10:49pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't believe this
SF writes:
" hope all understand your post, Garth, for what it truly is............" I hope so, too: an attempt at tongue in cheek humor. I'll bet even Peter got it. From now on, to avoid being misunderstood by you, I'll attach a warning: "Caution, a dry, perhaps too subtle attempt at humor is enclosed in this post. To those of you humor-impaired, or just looking for a reason to start a fight: please do not read." Good God..... The original post posed the question of how we would work with good, competent umpires with whom we did not get along. I chose to illustrate my answer using Peter and myself as examples. Peter is a good, competent umpire and we have a past history of not getting along personally. I felt and still feel that this is an excellent example of being able to set aside personal differences and work together on the diamond. So where is the insult? Answer: In your mind. Where is the personal attack? Answer: There was none, just a truthful statement: I can work on the field with those with whom I don't get along off the field, even Peter, with whom I share a long history of not getting along. Where did I say anything that was untrue or mean-spirited? As far as my association with eUmpire: I am not and never have been a moderator or employee. I was a contributing writer at one time, but a recent policy of eUmpire's dictates with whom I must develop a business relationship and, in my opinion, infringes on my right to association. I, therefore, ceased submitting articles to eUmpire. I have learned one thing tonight: If it is at all possible for a post to be taken in the wrong way, you will do it. If indeed Peter is offended by my post, I would apoligize, privately or publicly, whichever he prefers. I doubt seriously that is case. Peter would understand that I was addressing the premise of the original post. If anyone who is unaware of our history or my sense of humor is offended, likewise, I would apologize. But, I can offer no apology to you, Steve. The offense you have taken, you have created in your own mind. A note to Senior, you are three fourths right. Jim, Peter and I would get along just fine. We understand the initial question and would set a fine example in answering it on the field. [Edited by GarthB on Jan 15th, 2002 at 01:04 AM]
|
|
Wed Jan 16, 2002, 11:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don't believe this
Quote:
I need to add a little history to your "interaction" with Freix. I think that Fitzpatrick will agree with Cool Hand Hensley and Free the IX because most of his rulings are "cosmetic." The DH doesn't bat at least once. Appealed. Kick the sub out. (Everybody knows HE knows the rule.)Batter-runner not in the lane gets hit by a ball from anywhere. Call him out. (He's supposed to be in the lane.)Coach tries to help a guy return to the plate during a live ball. Call him out. (That's coach assistance.)Coach tries to help a guy return to touch a base during a dead ball. Call him out. (Everybody can SEE that's coach assistance.)I am not denigrating Fitzpatrick's rulings. [current emphasis] But he's training 227 umpires. He needs rulings that "look reasonable" because those are easy to sell. Remember, that's why major league umpires agreed to require a tag (rather than an appeal) for a runner returning to a missed base during unrelaxed action. The fans can SEE a tag; they can't HEAR the appeal.Based on my long relationship with Fitz, I predicted a ruling which Freix would agree with! His response, coming from a man who at the time was writing articles for me, is little short of amazing not to say audacious: Your words not only denigrate Fitzpatrick rulings, but also Fitzpatrick. You imply he cares not about the game; only its "appearance" to the fans. Even not knowing him, I will provide him more initial respect than that merely due to his position. Perhaps you know better through your experience with him --- at least that's what you imply with your post. I hope you are wrong. I cannot for the life of me understand why Freix felt the need to toady up to Osborne or Fitzpatrick. Talk about sycophancy.
|
|
Wed Jan 16, 2002, 01:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
1. There are those partner's whom we do not get along with but are good umpires meaning they conduct themselves professionally on the field."
Those "partner's" what don't you like? Their uniforms, mechanics, personality, rules knowledge? You made "partner's" a possessive, rather than plural. Bob
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
