A quote from the man himself, in his latest article:

"As Editor-in-Chief of the magazine, I wish Mr. Konyar had emailed me first so we could have discussed the problem like the gentlemen we are."

Why, Carl? So you could ignore him as you have done to me and others that have e-mailed you directly on this topic?

Pretty easy to pop someone in an article that we cannot immediately respond to. How about addressing that issue in this forum, where everyone, including those that don't subscribe to Officiating.com, can see and respond to your statements?

While we're at it, let's open up that topic of letting someone umpire teams that he is competing against as a player...

C'mon, Carl....what do ya say?

Carl won't respond, you called him on his bull****, trust me on this one....

Do you have something to say to Carl? Why not say it to him then?

When you need to speak to your wife, do you yell everything out across a croweded office or shopping mall? Or do you have the decency to direct your questions of her, to her?

On the other hand, if you have a statment to make to us here at this site regarding an experience you've had, then make it to us. Don't direct it to Carl.

I'm not defending Carl. Just suggesting a little civility and the use protocol.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

You're missing the point
 

The point I am making is that I DID address this issue with Carl in private e-mail. However, he has ignored my e-mail. Then, in his article, he calls Mr. Konyar on the carpet for not addressing him directly by e-mail. That's why I am calling him on it publicly. I did exactly what he said Mr. Konyar should have done, and he blew it off. What good would it have done for Mr. Konyar to write an e-mail to him? He probably got more of a response by writing to his softball editor because then Mr. Childress couldn't just sweep it under the table and ignore it. By my own experience, I would assume that Mr. Childress wouldn't discuss it "like the gentlemen we are" unless there was someone else aware the communication existed in the first place.

Calm down, I understand perfectly
 

But I'm not sure that you do. (Although your second post was much better.)

My point is that you need to address your audience. If your intent, as I assume, was to tell us (the public) about your grievance with Carl, then address it to us. By addressing it to Carl and pretending to speak to him instead of us, you came across badly. Forget the pretenses. You got something to say to us, then address it to us.

If you still want to talk to Carl. Then talk to Carl. The history of your communication with Carl matters not. Address who you want to talk to, whether it's us or Carl.

Striker,
 

I admit I am confused.

Have you ever sent an e-mail to Dan Patrick on ESPN and received an answer back?

Have you ever sent an e-mail to Jim Rome and got an answer back?

Have you ever wrote a "Letter to the Editor" and not had it published?

Face it, some people have more power and their communications have a greater chance of being answered.

I have never hidden the fact that on the issue of volunteer/paid umpire I am strongly behind the paid umpire. While I am grateful that there are true volunteers that offer their services to umpire I also hold a great dissatisfaction about people like Andy that say such "dumb things" about the difference between the two groups.

If volunteers are truely as good as paid umpires why does Little League always place the worst umpires possible in the LLWS for the world to see.

Striker my anger does not lie with volunteers it lies with a corporation (Little League) that REQUIRES volunteer umpires. They do it to control costs and hide behind volunteerism.

That's the way I feel and I have that right. So if you have problems with me fine . . . I am here and will battle with you. I just think you picked the wrong way to attack the editor of this section.

Tee

Wait a minute. Are we saying that the LLWS is umpired by ONLY VOLUNTEER UMPIRES.

While they may have volunteered for the WS, I would bet big money that most of them have been trained while earning the buck, or during a certification process. At least this applies to some of the officials I know that have worked this series.

I read the articles written and the truth lies were it falls. Wether some are not willing to deal it or not is a personal problem. 99% of the time the trained umpire is going to do a better job than the volunteer. If you fall within the 1%, well good for you but, thats not going to change the truth.

I write my Congressman all the time, the only time he replies is for a donation???? I do believe Carl offered Mr. Konyar money for a few words of wisdom. Hmm.

"Wait a minute. Are we saying that the LLWS is umpired by ONLY VOLUNTEER UMPIRES."


Yes. They may get paid to do other organization's games but all their LL games are volunteer.

I know I promised, but....
 

I couldn't let this go by...

jicecone writes:

"While they may have volunteered for the WS, I would bet big money that most of them have been trained while earning the buck, or during a certification process. At least this applies to some of the officials I know that have worked this series."

As a matter of fact, most LL umpires pay for their own training. Some are lucky enough to have their local league pay for some of it, the same as they pay for training for their coaches, fund-raisers, administrators, and others. Many rules clinics are put on by the local district. The regional training is $200/week, and is paid for by the umpires, unless the local league has a little extra money. ALL of the LL umpires gear is purchased by the umpires themselves, unless they want to use the often sub-standard gear provided by the league. Some of the officials do work with other associations for pay. Most do not.

It is unfortunate that you lump all volunteers in together. If you are watching a game that uses volunteer umpires, how do you know that one of them is not a paid umpire donating their time? But, as you are watching the game, your opinion of that umpire is automatically poor because of your pre-conceived notions.

The idea of using the terminology of trained versus untrained came up in another thread. That would be much more appropriate than paid vs volunteer or trained vs volunteer.

Much ado etc, etc,
 

A writer, not Carl, in the softball section at Officiating.com, within an article stated his opinion of volunteer versus paid umpires.

When Mr. Konyar learned, third hand I believe, of the contents he wrote an email to a third party who shared it with those at officiating.com

Carl's comments, in that light, seem justified. Carl did not make the statements that offended Konyar, nor did he insult anyone. He suggested a proper method of communication when one who is the position Konyar is in has questions or concerns.

My understanding is that Konyar was even offered a larger platform to discuss his views on the matter.

Wow. Reality really is lot more boring than the sensationalizations from third, fourth and fifth parties.

P.S. Chris: No bull to be called on. You've jumped the gun.

I see that by utilizing proper protocol and remaining civil, Andy Konyar accepted Carl's invitation to explain his position on the paid v. volunteer matter. Andy also seemed to realize that his intial response could have been better written and channeled. Appropriately, Officiating.com has made the article "free" to guarantee Andy the widest exposure possible.

There, now, without acrimony or name calling, this "tempest in a teapot" has been resolved, as far as the principals are concerned, at least.

A great example by Officiating.com and Andy Konyar.

Settled? Not....
 

Cheers to Mr. Konyar for taking the high road and being gracious.

Jeers to Mr. Childress for not taking responsibility (don't look at me...it was the writer's words, not mine). Glad he's not my UIC. (What do you want from me...he made the call)

Double Jeers to Mr. Campagna for ducking the issue entirely.

Since my path as an umpire probably won't stray much past the local arena, I probably won't have to work with either of these two people. Which is good... as I would decline, given the opportunity.

It's called integrity. Mr. Konyar has loads of it, and I look forward to working with him one day and am very proud to be a participant of his organization.

Tim:
I have no quarrel with you, and you have stated your opinion backed with experiences and information. You have helped me both through this forum and direction to available resources. (You, personally, kicked the rulebook out of my back pocket, figuratively speaking, of course!). Being up front and honest gains respect. Being evasive and arrogant does not. As someone who is still very much learning, there is no way I would even want to begin "battling" you, and I am not willing to even try to change your opinion.
Also, given the opportunity, I would welcome the chance to work with you, as it would be an opportunity to learn.

[Edited by Striker991 on Mar 4th, 2003 at 11:59 AM]

<b>Cheers to Mr. Konyar for taking the high road and being gracious.</b>

Yes. He has shown an excellent example to his followers. Hopefully they will learn from it.

<b>Jeers to Mr. Childress for not taking responsibility (don't look at me...it was the writer's words, not mine). Glad he's not my UIC. (What do you want from me...he made the call</b>

I don't recall seeing those words, but then again, I only read the article twice. And I hope all my UIC's understand that they may not overrule my calls.

<b>Double Jeers to Mr. Campagna for ducking the issue entirely.</b>

I didn't know he had. Was there a request made of him to do something?

<b>Since my path as an umpire probably won't stray much past the local arena, I probably won't have to work with either of these two people. Which is good... as I would decline, given the opportunity.</b>

That's too, bad. One should never decline an opportunity to learn. Mr. Osborne and I have had a shaky past to say the least, but I would jump at the chance to work a game with him. I personally agree with Mr. Konyars asserting that some of last year's LLWS umps performed sub-par, but I would welcome the opportunity to work with them and learn anything they had to offer.

<b>It's called integrity. Mr. Konyar has loads of it, and I look forward to working with him one day and am very proud to be a participant of his organization.</b>

Despite your impression, Mr. Konyar does not have an exclusive on integrity. But I'm glad to see you have the ambition to improve and move up. Good luck.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 4th, 2003 at 01:25 PM]

I DO expect support from my UIC.
 

I don't expect any UIC to overrule my calls. However, I expect the support of my UIC when it is necessary.

Let's see. Carl gave his writer the freedom to state his position without repercussions. He then deflected the attack on his writer by contacting Andy Konyar and providing him a platform to address his concerns.

Sounds like the proper action for an editor to me, straight by the numbers.

Your agenda appears to have fogged your view of what actually happend. Despite the hoopla from all the marketing people of America, perception is not really reality.

If you have a personal problem with Carl, stand in line. There any many ahead of you. Feel free to address your issues and attempt, if you are of mind, to fine resolution. But it does no one any good to superimpose your issues on to every action he takes. A one tune singer seldom succeeds for long. (With the possible exception of Wayne Newton)

Feel free to take the last word on this. I have nothing to add.




[Edited by GarthB on Mar 4th, 2003 at 01:26 PM]

I just have to pipe in. I read the thread, and find it funny that Carl is put in the same category as Dan Patrick, Jim Rhome, etc... Good one guys.

Also, Garth seems to take the opportunity to tell people how they are suppose to communicate in this forum. Who cares if it is proper or not. Is English 101 being taught?

Then it seems Garth is doing more to answer for Carl then Carl is doing to answer for himself. I must get my secretary to start doing this for me!

And finally, after everything was put out on the floor by Striker and he was told he was wrong and incorrect, we got a response from the Secretary stating that things had developed and were being answered.

That is all it takes. No balls...no blue chips. Garth, make sure you address us "lower level" umps, you do it perfectly correct. Show us how it is done.

Where can I get Carl's secretary's rule book on this forums proper entry's and how it SHOULD be according to Garth?

Re: You're missing the point
 

I'd be delighted to reply to your email -- if I had it. Concerning your comment that I ignored your email and "others":

(1) Please post your message here. It never reached me; it should have been returned to you. Perhaps you used an old address: Reach me at [email protected]. I answer every email except those about enlarging parts of my body.

(2) On the Andy Konyar issue, after my editor sent me Mr. Konyar's complaint and I published our response, I received exactly two emails, both from Andy. There has since been a third: He is leaving on Thursday for Belgium, Germany, and Poland. (It really is Little League <i>International</i>.) We have an appointment to get together after he returns.

The issue speaks for itself:

Mr. Konyar's original email is public.
The response of Officiating.com is public.
Mr. Konyar's article is public.

That anyone could find fault with the resolution of the "disagreement" is, as I was wont to say when I frequented the Boards:

Amazing!

Incidentally: I'm too old for weight training, which is why I don't respond to messages about building up my biceps.

<font color=blue>I added the following material in blue: Mr. Owens' email is in red:

I don't know if Greg Owens is Striker991, but I did receive this message on February 25, which was long before I posted my "reply" to Mr. Konyar. (I sent this email to my to-do box; I am slightly behind since our baseball season opened, and my 96-year-old mother-in-law was hospitalized.)</font>

<font color = red>There have been many derogatory comments made about volunteer umpires both in articles and in the forums. This last comment, made by Mr Campagna, was the last straw for me; "I'd rather pay someone to give me 50% effort and be impartial, blown calls and all, than have volunteer umpires!" I find this to be terribly insulting. How about giving us volunteers equal time?

A reply I made to him via e-mail: "I take great exception with this comment. We have an association that is ALL volunteer. In order to be a member and to keep getting assignments, you MUST be well trained, willing to work hard, maintain your clothing and equipment, and maintain relationships in the organizations to which you are assigned. All of this on our own dime and time. In fact, many of the volunteer umpires in our organization are those that also work in paid associations.

It is not necessary to make such derogatory comments about volunteer umpires. I see this all the time in the forums. The fact is, when someone is getting paid, they should be held to a MUCH higher standard than volunteer umpires. If I see a paid umpire blowing calls regularly and sitting on his heels in the field only giving 50% effort, his association and his assignor get both a phone call and a written notice from me and he will not be asked back. It doesn't matter to me that he is "impartial" because I don't care if he splits his bad calls evenly."

Why do you allow such comments in these articles? They are highly inflammatory and very unprofessional. We, as umpires, whether paid or volunteer, should work hard as a cohesive group to better ourselves and each other. These comments do nothing but to make it harder for volunteers to do their jobs.

My guess is that you would be unwilling to allow a volunteer equal column space.

Respectfully,
Greg Owens</font>

<font color=blue>I'm going to reply personally to Mr. Owens, and I make him the same offer I made Mr. Konyar:

Make your case for volunteerism in an article of 800-1000 words. We'll publish it, and we'll pay you for it. Or, we can donate the money to any Little League organization you name.

At Officiating.com we have nothing against volunteerism. We have everything against censorship of ideas and opinions, especially those we may disagree with.</font>

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 4th, 2003 at 03:12 PM]

Wow
 

I really did have nothing to add, but then...well

<b>Also, Garth seems to take the opportunity to tell people how they are suppose to communicate in this forum. Who cares if it is proper or not. Is English 101 being taught?</b>

No, no lessons in English or grammar or spelling or anything else that technical. I suggested that if someone had someting to say to someone that they not hide behind it by supposedly addressing a different audience; rather I would suggest that they honestly address to whom they are speaking. I guess this would come under the category of rhetoric, not English, per se.


<b>Then it seems Garth is doing more to answer for Carl then Carl is doing to answer for himself. I must get my secretary to start doing this for me!</b>


Actually, a careful read would show that I didn't speak for anyone other than myself, and the concerns that I expressed were mind. Those being an honest portrayl of events and the fortitude to address one's actual concerns legitmately and honestly.

I am not here to defend Carl. I don't believe I did. I became interested in the events being discussed and, without speaking with Carl or anyone else, read everything I could find printed and posted on the matter.

This odd behavior of mine is not limited to issues in which Carl is mentioned or involved. In the past I've addressed similar issues in a similar manner when posters have made similar mistakes about Peter Osborne, T. Alan Christensen, Warren Willson, Dave St. Clair, Scott Taylor, Umphater, and even, to the amazement of some, I'm sure, Jim Porter. (Quite a diverse group with divergent agendas, wouldn't you say?)

I did not get involved in this issue because of any personality, I got involved first of all to discover the truth of matter and then secondly to suggest that there are better and more successful ways to air a grievance.

I addressed what actually happened, not anyone's version of events, and if in so doing, flaws in the presentations of others were exposed, so be it.

<b>And finally, after everything was put out on the floor by Striker and he was told he was wrong and incorrect, we got a response from the Secretary stating that things had developed and were being answered.</b>

You seem to connect two different issues. I don't believe Striker was told that his apparent main grief was incorrect, that being he has issues with Carl. I'm sure he does. Many do. I have in the past. The list is too numerous to mention here.

However, as I read what actually happened it became obvious that Striker's interpretation of the intent of others and of some alleged actions were indeed incorrect. That has nothing to do with the resolution. The resolution was civil and appropriate and was not directed at Striker's issues, but rather addressed Mr. Konyars issues.

<b>That is all it takes. No balls...no blue chips. Garth, make sure you address us "lower level" umps, you do it perfectly correct. Show us how it is done.</b>

I'm not sure I know what you mean here and I fear trying to guess. I do not know who is a "low level" umpire. I do not know you or Striker. I said nothing in a manner to either of you that I would not say to a top level umpire who had made similar statements. I do not always communicate correctly, but with some few exceptions I do try to keep the real issues in mind.

<b>Where can I get Carl's secretary's rule book on this forums proper entry's and how it SHOULD be according to Garth?</b>

Look as I may over my previous posts I find no personal or derogatory or suggestive comment about you, whowefoolin. I have to admit your attack and insinuations surprise me. Lord knows, I've succumbed to provocation in the past and made a fool of myself, but I'll try to maintain better this time.

There's no such book to my knowledge. Simply attempt to be civil, refrain from getting too personal and stick to the facts of the matter. If you have something to say, say it truthfully, limit the exaggeration, put away the broad brush and pettiness and get to the subject.

None of that should sound like I'm trying to teach anyone anything. We've all been taught that by others, already, starting in kindergarten.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 4th, 2003 at 05:17 PM]

Re: Much ado etc, etc,
 

.

P.S. Chris: No bull to be called on. You've jumped the gun.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, I did. However Carl seems to have a tendency to skirt his issues. Seems to be grumpy ol fart...

Well, alrighty then.
 

I will also write a short note to Carl privately, but since I made this public, I will address this here as well.

Thank you.

A public response was important to me. You came through.

Thank you.

To reiterate my purpose, in case it has become lost in all of this, is to bring attention to how divisive statements like Mr. Campagna's can be. It seems to me that we have enough adversity to overcome as umpires, without creating internal issues of our own. We should strive to assist each other become better officials, whether paid or volunteer. Remember, in our own local associations, groups, and clubs, we are only as strong as our weakest member.

I may, as Carl suggested, write a short piece. I probably will not, as everyone pretty much everyone already knows my view on the topic, and Mr. Konyar has stated it simply and well. I appreciate being given the opportunity, however.

Thank you.

Bravo!
 

A wonderful gesture. ALong with Andy's and Carl's, we have another good example set. Thank you.

Greg:

After reading all this, I thought I would put my 2 cents worth in.

The beauty of the internet, is the ability to express contrary viewpoints immediately. In fact, these different views make for great reading and help everyone understand why people are so passionate about their views.

As you may or may not know, I write baseball articles and also edit the hockey site. I have on occasion written a contrary article about hockey, baseball and softball. There is nothing "wrong" with Stephan's view or yours. They are merely different. I have great respect for all of the guys who write on the internet for everyone to "judge." However, if I disagree, I will say so. It usually makes for a good debate and good reading. Shoot, we may even learn a thing or two.

BTW, an umpire from Nova Scotia (one of my regional UICs)will be Canada's representative at the LLWS this year. I'll personally kick his a** if he doesn't perform well!! LOL

Blaine

I enjoy your writing
 

Blaine:
I have enjoyed the articles you have written. Your style is not condescending nor insulting, and at times quite self-effacing. When you write about times you wished you would have done things differently, I can relate on two levels; I either am relieved and don't feel like a complete idiot for having done the same thing, or I know what to watch for so I might avoid the same traps.
Thank you for your contributions!