The Definition Of Integrity Has No Integrity In It

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
A poster here claims regarding IR:

"My belief is if you really, honestly believe you are good, then you will welcome review. If not, then hide behind your "integrity" excuse. But how about getting out of the way of umpires who would prefer to reward the game with accuracy and don't have these mountain high, self esteem issues as crutches.

Originally Posted by ChucktownBlue

Umpires are reviewed on a daily basis by every fan, coach, player, camera, sports reporter and supervisor, whether they welcome it or not.

If that is you're basis for judging yourself, have at it. My own standards have always far exceeded those.

What a bitter man.... miss out on that exclusive 9-10 year old championship game this year?

Bitter, not at all. I'm just repulsed by umpires who put their pride in advance of the game. Then howl about how IR "threatens their integrity", that's oxymoronic, they have none.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by wsttxump

I believe it has been owners that have voted down IR, not umpires. Hell this statement sounds like a coach whining about a rule that we are paid to enforce but they are the ones that voted and added it to the book.

In the bad old days of oversized egos and strike zones that included the batter's boxes, and no MLB control, MLB umps refused to even discuss IR. Then a couple of World Series of horrible strike zones on TV and they had Questec shoved down thier throats. (I defer to Jim on the actual history of this).

I agree, it most probably is the Owners who are soooooo concerned about getting fair calls. Do you see MLB umps taking up the slack and asking for IR where IR is very capable of adding to the accuracy of officiating. NOT.

Why? No integrity, too much pride.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Review (of umpire's performance by a qualified reviewer or group): Yes.

Instant Review (in a panacea to "get the call right"): Generally no.

In no instance, none? Not even for the Reviewer?

[briancurtin]

^ 5 ignored posts in a row by "fitump"

there is no reason not to reply all at once. most threads on this site are now unreadable and i, probably along with most posters, close the thread when half of the posts are made by the same ignored user.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

^ 5 ignored posts in a row by "fitump"

there is no reason not to reply all at once. most threads on this site are now unreadable and i, probably along with most posters, close the thread when half of the posts are made by the same ignored user.

I don't believe it is a stretch in anyway to suggest that the baseball page on the forum may be heading the way of McGriff's.

McGriff's died when the idiot posts and the responses to them became so numerous it wasn't worth wading through them to find something of relevance.

Those who engage idiots with their replies contribute to their continuing presence.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

^ 5 ignored posts in a row by "fitump"

there is no reason not to reply all at once. most threads on this site are now unreadable and i, probably along with most posters, close the thread when half of the posts are made by the same ignored user.

EXACTLY the point i try to make.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I don't believe it is a stretch in anyway to suggest that the baseball page on the forum may be heading the way of McGriff's.

McGriff's died when the idiot posts and the responses to them became so numerous it wasn't worth wading through them to find something of relevance.

Those who engage idiots with their replies contribute to their continuing presence.

I can't say about McGriffs, never been there, Looking at it now, what a piece of cr$$ it is. It's not a forum, it's a 3rd grade effort at a mailing list.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fitump56

I can't say about McGriffs, never been there, Looking at it now,

Exactly how can you "look at it now?" I get a "the requested URL was not found" error.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
I can't say about McGriffs, never been there, Looking at it now,

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Exactly how can you "look at it now?" I get a "the requested URL was not found" error.

1) http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

2) Company "bot"

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Exactly how can you "look at it now?" I get a "the requested URL was not found" error.

Answered, reply with same courtesy.

The Definition Of Integrity Has No Integrity In It

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fitump56

In no instance, none? Not even for the Reviewer?

I don't understand the question, but I stand by my post.

[SanDiegoSteve]

This thread is the biggest WOBW.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

so at what POINT does the MOD say WOW since 4/5 of the entire FORUM has IGNORED you but you STILL fill the forum with DRIVEL--that the DRIVELER is MADE to take a TIME OUT?

3/4 of EVERY THREAD is NOW IGnored posts from this GUY. WHEN will the forum END IT?

StOp WiTh ThE RaNdOm CaPs NoNsEnSe, PlEaSe.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This thread is the biggest WOBW.

Hey, where'd you get the image of jenkins?

[fitump56]

[

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Review (of umpire's performance by a qualified reviewer or group): Yes.

Instant Review (in a panacea to "get the call right"): Generally no.

In no instance would you support IR, none? Not even for a Reviewer who could be at the field performing both as your Reviewer and Play Reviewer? (think College Football)