The Definition Of Integrity Has No Integrity In It
 

A poster here claims regarding IR:

"There is simply no reason to slow down an already long game to review calls that umpires get right most of the time. The integrity of the umpires has never been questioned in any serious debate...calls that are missed cut both ways."

Wow, here I thought integrity included as its main ingredient making the best possible effort to be accurate. :eek: Not according to him, "IR has no place in baseball".

The real, underlying issue here has only to do with fractured egos, low self-esteem and umpires who are afraid that they will be shown exaclty as they are.

Crappy.

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.

Let me get this straight....
 

Are you purporting yourself to be absent any self-esteem issues? Then why must you post to try to prove certain individuals wrong?

Your posts have become tiresome. I shall now add you to MY ignore list.

Ahhhh... much better.

I purport the opposite.

Self-esteem begins with having compassion for ourselves, understanding who we are as individuals. Then to forgive ourselves (and others) for we all are humans and we make mistakes. I am not at all absent.

Once you have accepted the premise that there is no need to be afraid of failing, that integrity is tied to honesty, your best umpiring days are in front of you.

IR challenges umpires, not their integrity, their self-esteem.

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

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

"A poster here claims..."

The "Piano Man" is definitely a poster, likely is a posuer, claims to be an umpire, but comes off like a troll.

Jimmy's well-known on the softball board, where he commonly posts bizarre rule interpretations and espouses strange mechanics, has his opinions refuted by dozens of other posts, refuses to accept that the majority might be right, then digs in his heels and defends his indefensible positions to the death.

Keep him engaged here, guys! That should keep him busy and allow him less time to post his drivel over on the other board!

Self-esteem begins with having compassion for ourselves, understanding who we are as individuals.

Oh, wow, man. What a deep thought! So feeling sorry for yourself is the first step. Far out.

Then to forgive ourselves

Cool theology. New age. No self-esteem-robbing guilt involved. In my backward theology, you have to ask forgiveness from God or from those you've trespassed against. I think I'm switching to this new do-it-yourself model.

Here we go
 

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.

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

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

I tried and it worked great for a day or two but seems broken lately because posts are getting through...

I had the same problem when I added this poster to my ignore list. I figured out that I wasn't signed in when I opened up my browser. You have to sign in.

BTW I was about to stop looking at this forum until I used this feature on that poster. That how bad this poster has polluted this forum.

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?

Wrong information. Mick and Bob, the moderators, do <b>NOT</b> have the power to ban posters. They can recommend that but the owner of the site is the only one that is able to actually get rid of annoying posters. And that doesn't stop those yoyos from registering under another name and resuming posting. Case in point--the Chinese shoe sellers and PWL/StevenTyler. We've got a clown over on the basketball forum that's on his fourth <i>nom de net</i>; he's been tossed under his first three.

Personally, I think that posters who mix caps and small letters and give readers headaches by doing so should be banned too.
http://www.forumspile.com/Misc-Caps.gif
Just trying to help :D

Thanks. I was not aware you had to sign in.

After you sign in, add the website to your favorites list. Then you don't have to keep signing in as it will automatically do it for you.

Good luck with that! :D

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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

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. :mad:

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.

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

^ 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.

EXACTLY the point i try to make.

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.

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

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

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

2) Company "bot"

Answered, reply with same courtesy.

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...2&postcount=18

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

This thread is the biggest WOBW.

http://bolterandchainsword.com/uploa..._548_17134.jpg

StOp WiTh ThE RaNdOm CaPs NoNsEnSe, PlEaSe.

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

[
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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)

1) We're talking about baseball, not college football.

2) I said "generally" not "in no instance". The only time I can think of that it might be used is fair/foul on a "home run" -- where the ball is dead either way.

RIF.

A couple of things I wanted to point out.

As a player, I do not like umpires who are not willing to put their best effort towards preparing for an officiating a game. We have had umpires talking about how my league should only have 7 inning games, and not go the full 9 innings. To that, I say hang up the umpiring uniform, because anyone who is looking to get off the ball diamond as quickly as possible has no business being involved in the game at all. As umpires we are getting paid to serve the players and coaches. Come to the ballpark keeping that in mind, and if you want to leave by the bottom of the 2nd inning, please go and don't come back again.

I have also had enough with some of the punks on here who pick on PWL, when he isn't even here to defend himself. I have never had a problem with him. To claim one poster (StevenTyler) to be another (PWL) just because they both possess integrity is ludicrous. I also have an idea of why so many people here dislike fitump- he cares about the game of baseball, isn't in it for the money, and probably never did a game with the intention of getting off the diamond as soon as possible.

As a reader, I do not like posters who are not willing to put their best effort forth when writing a sentence.

Maybe they're right.

You are making an assumption. They may be referring to the inability of the players to play at a quality level beyond seven innings.

No, we are getting paid to arbitrate the game. There is a difference.

I believe this may be the first time I agreed with you. It would indeed be ludicrous if that was the reason for the claim. But, it is not.

Originally Posted by fitump56
[
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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)</I>

We are talking IR where the game is stopped and, possibly, a limited number of IRs are awarded each game. You know that, don't be disingenuos.

Then you need to think harder. I have listed several that make perfect sense, one would be a catch-no catch, 2 out, where the determination would be a catch and all Rs would not be allowed to advance.

It's about the money.

Only when I felt threatened.

I did put forth my best effort in writing a sentence. Even if I didn't, who cares it's only a sentence and not as big a deal as my ballgames. Maybe they are right, maybe this league should go seven innings, but it sure as hell is not up to the umpires to go to the league president and ask that games be shortened. Just don't umpire the games in my league cause I don't have any patience with people like that. And what is the difference between coming out to officiate a game, and coming out to serve the players and coaches? When I say serving the players and coaches, that means making the right calls, regardless of which team they go against. As for PWL, people ought to take their shots at him when he is present to defend himself.

Oh, my.

If they are right, why can't they make the suggestion? Does you league have rule the prohibits umpires from making suggestions?

Think about it, it will come to you.

They are.

As an umpire, I do not like players who think they can tell an umpire what to say or do. You sound more like a rat than an umpire. Pick one and stick with it and don't try to wear two hats. Perhaps the umpires took this position because the teams in your league really suck and you are all not as good as your egos perceive you to be.:eek:

For the record, PWL and Steven Tyler are in fact the same person. It's not guesswork, it's not hocus-pocus. It is just a fact. Deal with it. And I'm still trying desperately to find this so-called integrity that he allegedly possesses.:confused:

I have much more integrity than you.

I'll take my life over your much pathetic one any day.

What kind of man lets his wife support him?

Oh I know, that would be you.

A retired man married to a very wealthy woman.

And we both enjoy every minute, thank you.

Do they still teach English in Canada?

I'll bet you do. I've met her.

How've you been stranger? Check your email.

When I was drunk at 14.

THANKS! Nice pics, who is he?

Oh No, PWL is back?

Ouch. I had hoped that this wouldn't come up but, "Oh well". :p

Not like here in the RWB Good Old USA, right Brother!

(Aside) I afears ya' all said told you be in the Top Five Garthie Cub.

Imagine the power. :(

Noted not a retired wealthy man who attracts wealthy women of same stature. What's that term, jig, jiga, ..jigaLO, yeah, that;s it!

You enjoy her dough, she enjoys giving it to someone. Bet she's a real beauty too.

Ms. Hennypackergoose: "Oh, you're so manly, do you put your life on the line at all times, wear a uniform and defy death?

MRU:, Why yes ma'am I do! I umpire.

Ms: Oooh, let's marry!

MRU: OK! ("Jeez she looks like a duck with an inverted bill and gout! but I must do what I must for my motto is...

..drum roll....." Better a retired man married to a very wealthy woman..can get through it, thank you, for large garbage bags when we have sex."

Why would you insult the wife of someone you don't know? Why do you feel the need to attack anyone you don't know? Have I upset you somehow? I don't recall posting anything to you in the past.

If you feel the need to prove or compensate for your manhood, feel free to attack me, but you prove nothing by attacking a woman.

I totally apologize.

I agree.