Thanks for the memories

[His High Holiness]

All;

Ah, the fond memories of flame wars in the past. It was truly a joy to observe the s$$$house that I stirred up. I was laughing so hard, my office mates thought that I was reading internet porn.

For those that started reading the boards less than a year ago or so, these types of flame wars used to be an almost daily occurrance on eumpire. In the past, I was kicked off of eumpire on at least two occasions for starting stuff like this. I have also been kicked out of every listserve that I have belonged to for the same reason. In the past, I would label my attempts "as trying to start a s$$$house" which would infuriate the powers that be. This time, I just laid in the weeds and accomplished the same thing.

I need to make a few confessions. At the time that I wrote this, I was fairly sure that the MLB umpire was a relative no name. After I posted the piece, I emailed our resident expert on MLB umpires, Tim C, and asked him to confirm the MLB umpire's biography:

1. The MLB umpire has not umpired pro ball since the 1960s.
2. To say that he was a retired MLB umpire is misleading. He was terminated. His internet bio makes no mention of that however, and I felt uncomfortable posting it since I was not sure of his exact status. Thanks to Tim C, for his extensive memory regarding all MLB trivia.
3. There was malice of forethought in my post. I was fairly sure that some MLB groupies here at eumpire would jump on the bandwagon and support an MLB umpire, no matter what his qualifications. That would get the ball rolling as the purests among us would see the fallacy of the ancient MLB umpire. The fact that Jim Porter joined the groupie party was icing on the cake.

Garth was right to call Jim Porter on Jim's lack of scholarly argument in backing up the postion to call it a balk. I can't prove it, of course, but I would bet that Jim would have been on the other side of the argument had it not been an "MLB umpire" (ooooooh) saying it was a balk.

Several of you on the right side, got one thing wrong however. It is not the responsibility of the umpire to know where the ball is after it becomes dead. We have other things to do on a dead ball.

1. Drink water and towel off. Adjust our equipment as necessary.

2. Have "discussions" with the coaches.

3. Make lineup changes and other notes on our cards, such as record visits or courtesy runners in FED.

4. Rest.

5. If it's real hot, drink more water

6. Check out the scenery in the stands.

7. If there is a real hottie in the stands, stare at her some more.

8. Clean the plate.

As you can see, when all is said and done, the umpires have no reason to know where the ball is during a dead ball. They are not idiots for putting the ball in play if they have reason to believe that the pitcher has the ball.

That's why the rules help us establish where the ball is to be in order to bring it back in play. We are trusting that the players know this. It has to be in the possession of the pitcher and he must be on the rubber. This is for our protection as much as anything else.

Some of the MLB umpire groupies justified their position by saying that this illegal act must be punished. In MLB baseball, the apporpriate punishment might be ejection. At the level of ball that the rest of us do, we have another role. To a certain extent, we are educators. Gentle instruction on proper procedure is what's called for. Now if they try the same thing twice in one game, perhaps an ejection is called for.

Finally, I started this s$$$house for a reason. We must all be careful about the sources that we use to back up our positions. Don't use MLB as a guideline for situations that never occur or would not occur in MLB. You must consult people that do the type of baseball that you do and have real world experience in walking in your shoes. Several NCAA umpires that I know have a theory about MLB umpires. They would never get far in NCAA baseball. Their reputations would carry them, perhaps. But if Charlie Reliford went to NCAA D1 game and said his name was Charlie Jones, he would be scratched before he had completed 1 season. Likewise, NCAA umpires would probably not make it in MLB.

Both of us would have to change the way we did business in a hurry to survive on the other man's turf. Likewise, we need to be careful of where we get our advice. That was my goal in bringing all of this up. That and a whole lot of laughs.

Peter

[Tim C]

PO:

And "they" all fell for it!

Actually through your ruse we all discovered a lot about the play and each other.

[PeteBooth]

Peter,

just wondering, is your latest thread a record?

A. On this Forum 7 Pages long and over a 1,000 views

B. On any other Board.

BTW somone borrowed your thread and posted on another Board where it received even more play. So if you add up all the posts on this Forum plus others I'm guessing if this thread isn't a RECORD it's right up there.

So here we have it.

Barry Bonds - single season HR record holder
Joe DiMaggio - 56 game hitting streek
Ted Williams - last man to bat 400 in a season

and Peter Osborn's thread - most responses to an Internet Message Board. Perhpas this thread will be in the Guiness Book of records.

Peter, whether people agree with you or not, your statement: "People want Entertainment on a Message Board" prooves itself once again. On the surface I didn't think this type of play would generate the responses that it got and if some coaches peeked in it's no wonder we have problems with them.

Pete Booth

[jicecone]

It just goes to show, some people truly have no life.

[GarthB]

Peter adds: "We must all be careful about the sources that we use to back up our positions. Don't use MLB as a guideline for situations that never occur or would not occur in MLB. You must consult people that do the type of baseball that you do and have real world experience in walking in your shoes. Several NCAA umpires that I know have a theory about MLB umpires. They would never get far in NCAA baseball."

Yayyyy!


Over the years, Peter's mantra has been: "Do it like they do it in the bigs." I have never had a problem with that statement....as starting point. But in the past, I always had to add the part of not using the bigs for your example if you are working U12. Use the "big umpires" who work U12. Use the real "bigs" only if you are doing relatively high calibre ball.

My disagreements with Peter over the years would have diminished by at least half, if he had added that addendum three years ago. We probably still differ over "situations that would not occur in MLB" only because I believe ANYTHING is possible, even at MLB.

Again, Peter's comments regarding NCAA umpiring are right on the mark. While they will probably never say so on the internet or in the press, I have heard the exact same comments from the very top NCAA umpires and assignors. One top NCAA official, who is the exception and has AAA experience, noted that he had to "unlearn" everything he knew about game management and rule enforcement before he was accepted in NCAA circles. He added that that was extremely difficult, and noting that he was an exception, said: "Most professional umpires can't make the transition."

Peter: The exercise was refreshing. And you are right in targeting the reason. I was about to just walk away and shake my head when an incident reeking of the "lack of scholarly argument", as you so politely put it, drew me back quicker than you can say "fresh meat at McGriff's".

Ahhhhhh, the memories.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
3. There was malice of forethought in my post. I was fairly sure that some MLB groupies here at eumpire would jump on the bandwagon and support an MLB umpire, no matter what his qualifications. That would get the ball rolling as the purests among us would see the fallacy of the ancient MLB umpire. The fact that Jim Porter joined the groupie party was icing on the cake.

Garth was right to call Jim Porter on Jim's lack of scholarly argument in backing up the postion to call it a balk. I can't prove it, of course, but I would bet that Jim would have been on the other side of the argument had it not been an "MLB umpire" (ooooooh) saying it was a balk.

Wrong. I argued this same topic on the original UmpireTalk years ago. I was alone then, too. I have it in the archives. Would you like to see? Fact is, your little story about the MLU had nothing to do with the opinion I drew and I can prove it.

I don't have a problem being alone with my opinions. For example, I was alone with my opinion that a right-handed pitcher who steps backwards with his pivot foot toward first has not committed a balk. Garth acted like a child and started calling me names when I held that position, too. Turned out the PBUC backed up my lone opinion. The difference? I didn't blow trumpets and set up a parade to show the world how right I was. I also didn't seek to embarass Garth or anyone else for their incorrect opinion.

[GarthB]

Peter:

Ah....how distance can blur a memomory. It's a wonderful thing. Anyone can use another's name, make an accusation of the past and then claim the high road.

The accurate very recent past, though is still with us.

Those who can read will note that there was no so-called "name calling" in the recent thread. I, indeed accurately labeled an improper action taken by someone. However, I never labeled him/her as a habitual or even casual practicioner of the art.

I loathe the practice, but by nessecity tolerate the practitioner.

Now then, if one wishes to attach a verb to a person by means of a noun. That would be of their choosing.

"Oh look" I say, someone just prevaricated. Someone else, even the one in question might say, "Damn prevaricator."

Someone might say "He copied that material." And, again someone else might choose to say, "He's a plagiarist." But that is that the way I choose to go. I prefer referring to the action, not the party.

Not without precise thought, did I carefully avoid of using labels.

Semantics? Perhaps. But, none-the-less, I am usually quite careful to not "call names". Do I slip ever? Probably, but not this time. And anyone who claims otherwise is a...whoops. Almost slipped.

[Edited by GarthB on Aug 8th, 2002 at 01:18 PM]

[bluezebra]

"Several of you on the right side, got one thing wrong however. It is not the responsibility of the umpire to know where the ball is after it becomes dead. We have other things to do on a dead ball."

True. BUT, the PU better know where the ball is BEFORE making it live again.

Bob

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by GarthB
SNIP

Hey Garth,

Remember saying this?

You won't have to worry about me posting in reponse to you ever again.

Does that mean I can now accurately label your improper action as a lie?

[GarthB]

Peter:

One more thing...

If Jim ever posts here again, let me know. While I won't respond to the gentleman, his posts are amusing.

GB

[GarthB]

Peter:

And just one more thing:

If I EVER try to win a debate by stating that J/R and JEA "support" my position, when it is clear to the world that they do not, rip out my tongue and exile me to the (gasp) sleazeTeam board.

GB