As is often the case Partners You Dislike has deteriorated into snipping and name-calling. I think it helps if we realize that electronic medium can make it difficult to recognize subtle levels of humor.

I thought it was a good question that Pete Booth offered to get the thread going.

I would like to pose the question. Do you think umpires perform better when they work with "regular partners i.e. one to three guys on most games? Do they improve their skills doing so? Jim/NYC

I'm sure they could.. if the partners were BETTER then they were, or both were equal and committed to improvement.

Such regularity is not possible in many associations however. I will see 50 to 75 different guys each season. The same guy no more then 3 or 4 times max. Just the way the assigning goes.

IF Ump A is a decent medium dog, and his pal, Ump B sucks, Ump A is never going to get better working with him.

In fact, if you read down further on the Stone Tablets of the Antlered Arbiter, you will see this axiom:

The poor partner will crash your game by default.

Meaning that you will sink in the same cesspool as your lousy partner, so no matter how good your calls were, once he has kicked his share, you BOTH suck, in the eyes of the participants.

Mike B

Assuming all are competent, yes, of course. For the same reason that a top baseball team will outperform an all-star team.

There would be the same kinds of tensions you see on any team (grumbling about the showboat, or the team member who doesn't support the team, or the team member who coasts along and makes the others cover for him, etc). But all else being equal, the team would call a better game than a collection of interchangeable umpires who never work with a regular partner.

Maybe. They would definitely improve their ability to work together. If there was a highly skilled team member, the others would learn from him, but he may not improve much.

Two Way Street
 

I am in the lucky position to work on regular basis with a very experienced umpire. As a result, he has helped improve my game in numerous ways. Prior to the game, we can go into the finer points of 2 man coverage since we have established working system. During the game, I trust him and that allows to focus my responsibilities. After the game, he provides with valuable feedback on my progress.

As for what I attempt to do to help him, I make every effort to honest communication. If he asks me about his performance or feedback, I do so honestly and directly. I believe even the most experienced umpires wants to hear from someone they trust. In addition, I am able to spend time on the Internet and I pass along as much interesting material as I can.

Spell Check Failure
 

Would you belive I was an English Major? -- It was a long time ago. I have been knwn to do some snipping myself. I save these pearls of wisdom on the C drive at home. It sure is great when internet umpires help each other! Jim/NYC

I knew you'd understand.
 

His Highest of High Holinesses quipped:

"<i>Snipping is what GarthB does to my posts so that he can quote them out of context. Sniping is what I am doing in this post."</i>

And: <i>"GarthB and I could work well together in dozens of games."</i>

While I don't agree I've quoted you out of context, (but rather presented your words on a clearer slate for easier examination), I knew you would agree that we could work together and that despite Mr. F's imagination, you would understand the example I presented.

However, I don't believe you've sniped, I believe you, as did I, presented a real illustration to Pete's first post. I thank you for not jumping aboard Mr. F's crusade, Peter.

Someday, we'll have to work together, only, I get the plate. I can tell from your photo your eyesight isn't what it used to be.



P.S. One clarification: I, personally, have never referred to you as the "anti-Christ" of anything, and I think you know that. Can you honestly say the same about calling me a "Snuffler?"

Regards,

GB

Re: I knew you'd understand.
 

Yeah! That goes for me too.

<i> Originally posted by Ump20 </i>

<b> As is often the case <i> Partners You Dislike </i> has deteriorated into snipping and name-calling. I think it helps if we realize that electronic medium can make it difficult to recognize subtle levels of humor.

I thought it was a good question that Pete Booth offered to get the thread going.

I would like to pose the question. Do you think umpires perform better when they work with <i> "regular </i> partners i.e. one to three guys on most games? Do they improve their skills doing so? Jim/NYC </b> </i>

Whenever we are <i> Teamed up </i> with other individuals whether it be an umpiring crew, major project at work, etc. IMO while not mandatory that we get along it helps. It's Human Nature.

In Big Games I Prefer to work with Familiar Partners. Also, since each of us <i> Knows each other </i> IMO it makes for a batter game - No Guess Work.

Ok some might say "how does a rookie" become <b> "one of the guys" </b> My answer: just as the New employee on the block - One has to earn the respect of his / her peers (as we all had to)

Bottom Line: As long as each umpire is competent, there shouldn't be a problem, but as in all walks of life it helps if you also get along.

Pete Booth

Ok Peter,

Just to prove your point, I've snipped your post so that I could snipe at the fact that while you were sniping at Jim for misspelling the word sniping as snipping, it is quite obvious that you misspelled the word snipe as snip in your post above.

But then again, I could be wrong, since I did in fact snip your post so perhaps that is what you intended to say after all. ;)

--SamC

Sorry Peter
 

I tried the email address you listed and the mail was returned as undeliverable. Any suggestions?

GB

Are you sure you didn't "snipe" and paste his e-mail address; instead of, "snip" and paste.... ;- ) anyway,
what was the original question? Oh yes, I recall now. I have to lean towards the great antlered one's response. But, do have the luxury of working with a regular partner. Even if I do have to carry him most of the time! We do get on each other pretty good if we have had an off day. Or, if we see the other is losing focus we usually try to give each other a wake up call before any of the coaches or players get po'd...

Rog,

I've met your partner. You'd be lucky to carry him half way to first.

GB

Re: I'll try to add to the sniping
 

Peter:<p>This is why I'm the editor, you're the writer. You can spell, that's true. But punctuation may not be your forte. (Remember, everybody, that's pronounced "fort," not "for-te." "Forte" is a strong point: one syllable. "For-te" is a musical term from Italian and means "loud": two syllables. Some people consider it the most widely misprounounced of the "hard" words in English.)

At any rate: Your sentence should read:<ul><p>Can't you even spell correctly<font size=8>?</font></ul><p>I'll spell a word here: [grin].