I just find a comment about "masterbating" not funny. Just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I'll leave it at that.

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University, a renowned ethicist who has won all kinds of awards for his astute perceptions regarding ethics and morality, believes—and teaches—that it is healthy for humans to have sex with animals. He recommends sex with chickens, which he says will help both human and chicken understand each other better. (He does not get into details.) Professor Singer, a proud Marxist and atheist, is not encumbered by 19th-century hangups, and has a progressive, "contemporary outlook" on sexuality.

This wise ethicist also believes that if parents find that caring for their handicapped one-year-old is too difficult, they should be permitted to "euthanize" their problem. Again, no 19-century hangups for this man. Professor Singer is highly regarded in South America and Europistan.

If you have the money, you can have your son or daughter taught by Professor Singer.

Forty years ago, I played in a baseball tournament that received a lot of press attention for two reasons: (1) we used a 20-second scoreboard clock for pitches, and (2) Bernice Gera was one of the umpires. MLB sent Monte Irvin and other representatives to gauge how well the clock worked, but it turned out that it was practically irrelevant: no pitcher took anywhere near 20 seconds between pitches. Bernice Gera handled herself pretty well, but when an opposing pitcher checked runners on 1B with an obvious turn of the shoulder (which was unusual to see at that level), I quietly questioned her about it. She said that since he did it on every pitch, it was part of his motion and thus legal. I didn't pursue the point.

Sorry for cluttering this thread with actual baseball discussion but...I wonder if that would still be true today?

Especially now that it is 12 seconds. I've still never seen it called at any level yet.

It only applies, of course, with no runnrs on base. Then:

The MLBUM (2009 edition p24) says the clock starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball AND the batter is in the box "alert to the pitcher".

At this point in play, there is hardly ever anything approaching a violation.

At first, everybody was watching the clock (including me, in left field). By the time the tournament was over, nobody was. It's interesting to me that even in 1969, MLB was concerned about the pace of the game.

A few years ago, I ran into an old friend we had picked up to play for us in that tournament. He had gone on to a 15-year career in the Majors and played in a League Championship Series and a World Series. He mentioned that—35 years later—he still felt bad that he hadn't hit better for us during that tournament. He didn't remember that a woman had umpired any of our games.

I remember that our coach, who was also a college coach, got himself a permanent nickname from that tournament. They used 3 umpires, and he went out to question a call made by the 3B umpire. Our coach asked, "Are you telling me he didn't get under that tag?" and started on his way back to the dugout. The response: "That's what I'm tellin' you, Mac," froze our coach, and we all laughed while a spectator yelled, "He was out by a mile. Get back in the dugout, Mac!"

Since that night, he's been "Mac" to everyone who remembers.

It only applies, of course, with no runners on base. Then:

The MLBUM (2009 edition p24) says the clock starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball AND the batter is in the box "alert to the pitcher".

At this point in play, there is hardly ever anything approaching a violation.

In the tournament, they started the clock shortly after the pitcher received the ball from the catcher. They stopped the clock if the batter stepped out, and they reset it to I think 10 seconds if the clock stopped within 10.

I'm not sure whether the clock ran with runners on base.

So you choose to be part of the problem. Thanks for making that clear.

Not from this side of the exchange.

As far as I can tell, very little (except for one or two posters) of this thread has to do with the morality of sex in general. This is a completley different topic from an umpire's realtionships (in the broadest sense -- not just sex) with the players and others involved in the game.

Let's keep the focus off the former and on the latter (to the extent it needs to be discussed).

Once again, you leave an offensive post up from one of your preferred members, and when it is answered, you delete the response. What part of what I posted warranted censorship? The part about freedom? Or the part about extremism? It was the truth. And it was relevant.

There are no "preferred members." You have posted (at least) twice on an issue that isn't relevant to the discussion (the general morality of sex); someone else has posted once.

And, while I did delete your most recent response, I deleted at least one other response that was not yours as well.


Drop it.

I highly recommend Weber's book, by the way. He's a fine writer with a great take on our wonderful vocation.

Agreed. It gives great insight into what umpire school and life in the minor leagues are like. Tuss Agee might enjoy it to prepare him for what it is like at Jim Evans if he plans on going in 2010.

The book shows that just like in this thread, a lot of verbal spats take place in the umpiring world. It seems like all kinds of non-umpiring stuff (i.e. the stuff about Ria) finds it's way into being an umpire. It's unfortunate, but the book suggests it's a reality of the profession. I'd be interested to hear what Tee and others have to say about this.

It's the reality of all professions. The gossip at APA and CPA conferences and conventions is unreal. At the university level, the talk of which professor is sleeping with which dean is fodder in the cafe and at the pub. What I hear from those ML and MiLB umpires with whom I have had the opportunity to share a beverage or two is nothing more extreme or different from any other profession.

Remember, Weber had to select among many many hours of conversations and quotes and minimize the opporutnity for law suits. I'll bet my next game fee that in person, he has even more interesting stories to tell.

Agreed.