A.D. problems

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

On what planet do athletic directors have property rights at a high school? They have no more say-so than the coach, the math teacher, or the janitor. I would call the game for my own convenience and profit, but not out of some sense that the AD was some authority over me. He may boss his school's coaches around, but I'll be damned if I let an AD run my business.

He's the official representative of the school.

I didn't say he has authority over you. I said he has authority over the use of the field. If you want to continue the game, fine - you just can't do it on that field.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

He's the official representative of the school.

I didn't say he has authority over you. I said he has authority over the use of the field. If you want to continue the game, fine - you just can't do it on that field.

All of this arguing and the game continued(or would have) after the AD tried to call it. Hmmmmmmmmm.... Did he really have authority or just acting like it? Seems to have been acting since the umpire told him game is not called and he walked off mad.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

He's the official representative of the school.

Good for him. That and $.99 will get him a dollar menu fry.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I said he has [sole] authority over the use of the field.

Based on the laws in what jurisdiction?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Brett

Based on the laws in what jurisdiction?

If it's at his school, pretty much all of them.

Whether the state HS association has granted the ability for a unilateral decision by an AD to terminate a game held on his grounds is different from whether he has the legal authority to do so.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Brett

Good for him. That and $.99 will get him a dollar menu fry.



Based on the laws in what jurisdiction?

You added the [sole] to my post. Very bad form.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You added the [sole] to my post. Very bad form.

Had I added it without calling attention to the fact that is was added editorially (with the brackets) for clarification to the point you were trying to make, I'd agree with you. It's common practice when quoting someone to add or modify words when necessary to give context to a quote without the surrounding context of the original quote or to help the flow of the sentence. Don't like it? Too bad.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Brett

It's common practice when quoting someone to add or modify words when necessary to give context to a quote without the surrounding context of the original quote or to help the flow of the sentence. Don't like it? Too bad.

Disagree. Words are changed in quotes when the quote is part of a larger sentence so the tense makes sense, or so that pronouns are clear, or to edit for "family newpapers".

None of those is true in your quote.

Adding the word "sole" in the quote changes the meaning of it.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Adding the word "sole" in the quote changes the meaning of it.

Bob:

I don't think it changed the meaning of the original post. I thought it provided context that the partial quote left off. If we disagree on that point, so be it. I obviously wasn't trying to trick anyone by adding it. If I were I wouldn't have indicated the editorial addition with the brackets.


Mark:

Aren't you injecting his own opinion about the AD's motives? Under the circumstances you describe, I agree with you. I thought I already said that.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Brett

Had I added it without calling attention to the fact that is was added editorially (with the brackets) for clarification to the point you were trying to make, I'd agree with you. It's common practice when quoting someone to add or modify words when necessary to give context to a quote without the surrounding context of the original quote or to help the flow of the sentence. Don't like it? Too bad.

Bullsh!t. Words are added to quotes to indicate what was being referenced when the speak omits it, such as:

According to the witness: "When I came out side (the burglar) was running down the street."

OR

"It's obvioius (Brett) doesn't know squat about writing style."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Bullsh!t. Words are added to quotes to indicate what was being referenced when the speak omits it, such as:

According to the witness: "When I came out side (the burglar) was running down the street."

OR

"It's obvioius (Brett) doesn't know squat about writing style."

OR

"[MrUmpire] should have used square brackets for editorial interpolations."

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OR

"[MrUmpire] should have used square brackets for editorial interpolations."

That would depend on which style one uses. The NYT style guide for journalistic puposes does not use square brackets in the body of news stories.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Brett

Good for him. That and $.99 will get him a dollar menu fry.

Betcha that menu fry that if you need someone for crowd control you'll think he IS the offfical rep of the school.

Can't have it both ways.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

In general, the UIC/PU is in control of the diamond, BUT, the situation we are discussing has nothing to do with the general rules of baseball. It has to do with a school official and his jurisdiction with regard to the field conditions.

99.9999999999...........................% of the time, when the umpires use their good judgement and notify the proper school authority to fix a problem on the field that causes a safety hazard, the school authority or coach will complain that you are the first umpires that have made an issue about the alleged problem. But in the case being discussed, the AD is being proactive with regard to the condition of the field and is using his position as the home school representative, to insure that the safety of the players come first. As I have stated in an earlier post, take your game fee check and take your wife/girl friend/mistress (or all three) out to a nice dinner and be thankful for this AD.

MTD, Sr.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

But in the case being discussed, the AD is being proactive with regard to the condition of the field and is using his position as the home school representative, to insure that the safety of the players come first.

Which case are you discussing? The OP stated the umpire got the feeling that the AD was trying to get home because it was "only" a FROSH doubleheader.

If what you're stating were the case, I'd whole heartedly agree with you.

If what the OP thought was correct and the AD was trying to cheat the players out of a double header because he wanted to get home, shame on him.

I usually work with "game management" an give their input quite a bit of weight when it comes to matters like this. However, when I get the sense that adults are putting their interests ahead of the interests of the child players involved; I have no problem taking a stand. If the AD wants to go home that bad, he can pull his team and forfeit both games.

[BrookstheUmp]

I would have a problem with the AD butting in in this situation. Now if there was a nasty thunderstorm on the way, i could understand. Let's not forget, this is about field conditions. Once the game starts, the umpires are the SOLE authority as to whether conditions are fit to play. The umpires are in charge of the game, not the AD.