Carl Childress

[Striker991]

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?

[chris s]

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

[GarthB]

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.

[Striker991]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[Tim C]

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

[jicecone]

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.

[Rich Ives]

"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.

[Striker991]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[Striker991]

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]

[GarthB]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

[Striker991]

Originally posted by GarthB

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

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]

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

[GarthB]

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]