Earrings and a ponytail.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I have no problem some that locales don't consider a professional appearance to be important.

In my area those gentlement would be highly regarded for their mechanics knowledge and ability and perhaps their rules knowledge. Again, they would not be considred great umpires without the complete package.

Appearance, professionalism, grooming, and athleticism all appear on our rating sheet.

It does not cause us to use inferior umpires, rather, our members understand the importance placed on those traits and make them part of their umpiring. Your arguement that these guys would get short shrift in other areas in speculation. If they are that good, and if umpiring is important to them, I would speculate they would follow the rules of their association.

Different strokes. We are not California casual here. And from my experience, none of the pros I've run into are either.

California casual ...

Do you prefer a clean-shaven, egotistical, immobile hack to a humble, diligent, knowledgeable, mobile umpiring devotee? Because our assignors often make that same choice. And our evaluators often weigh 15 different criteria against grooming, and rate great umpires with goatees accordingly.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

California casual ...

Do you prefer a clean-shaven, egotistical, immobile hack to a humble, diligent, knowledgeable, mobile umpiring devotee? Because our assignors often make that same choice. And our evaluators often weigh 15 different criteria against grooming, and rate great umpires with goatees accordingly.

Of course not, but I don't think that's the issue here.

The issue is a clean-shaven, egotistical, imobile hack vs. a bearded, egotistical, immobile hack.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Of course not, but I don't think that's the issue here.

The issue is a clean-shaven, egotistical, imobile hack vs. a bearded, egotistical, immobile hack.

The issue as I've read along seems to be that "improper grooming" [insert personal definition here] is in and of itself reason to disqualify an umpire.

Good thing that it doesn't apply to players - we'd have missed out on a LOT of really good ones.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Of course not, but I don't think that's the issue here.

The issue is a clean-shaven, egotistical, imobile hack vs. a bearded, egotistical, immobile hack.

Perfect!

That was beautiful.

We disagree almost not at all on this one, then?

[UmpJM]

Well....

This has been an illuminating conversation.

When I was younger, I have worn both a ponytail and an earring - at times, concurrently.

I have never worn either while umpiring a baseball game.

Nor would I hold it against an umpire who did, were I in a position to do so (which I'm not).

I finally watched the linked video. I was pretty impressed with the quality of the training someone was putting on for youth umpires. (Yeah, I thought the feet together thing was pretty wierd, but, overall...)

The gentleman in question, with the earrings and ponytail, seemed to know what he was talking about and had a good "manner" with the kids he was teaching. He was also "professionally dressed", which, to me, is more important than the person's appearance with regard to hair length, facial hair, piercings, or "ink".

Yeah, I could "quibble" with a few things he was teaching, but I bet the kids paid attention to him.

My impression is that he'd be a fun partner to work with.

Now, I wear my hair shorter. If I'm working a game at a HS with a "dress code", I will conform to that code in what I wear driving to the game. That's just how I do it.

I don't think a ponytail should be any more disqualifying than a "buzz cut". In some situations it is.

Recognize the situation and, as in all things, do as you think best.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

California casual ...

Do you prefer a clean-shaven, egotistical, immobile hack to a humble, diligent, knowledgeable, mobile umpiring devotee? Because our assignors often make that same choice. And our evaluators often weigh 15 different criteria against grooming, and rate great umpires with goatees accordingly.

Why would you assume that it had to be such a choice, especially when I've specified "the complete package" in all my posts?

I believe really good umpires step up and fmeet the expectations of their associations. Different locales, different expectations, apparently. We follow the pro expectations. Some do not.