Sorry in advance for the length of this post.

Tournament game. Managers are told by the tournament director that they are the only reps from their teams allowed to address the umpires. They are also told if they have a question on a call, they are to request time and go the umpire that made the call.

2 outs, runner on 2B. I'm BU in position C. Grounder to short stop. Throw to 1B clearly beats the BR, but I am straight-lined on the throw. I signal the out and am unaware that the throw pulled F3 off the bag. BR heads for the dugout and defense heads off the field. There was no immediate reaction or response from the team at bat that would indicate a pulled foot.

First base coach goes to my partner at the plate and says that F3 was off the bag. Partner tells the base coach that only the manager can appeal the call and that manager must go to the umpire that made the call. Manager is in the dugout and apparently didn't even see the play. Base coach relays this info to manager. Manager comes to me and appeals the pulled foot. I go to partner and partner verifies that F3 was off the bag. Defense has totally cleared the field and team at bat has begun to take the field by this time.

How should this situation have been handled and what should have been the final ruling?

sounds as if it was handled ok. the first base coach was told the correct info. after discussing with plate umpire, if he confirms the pulled foot, base umpire changes call and put the batter/runer on first. defense assumes their positions and next hitter is up.

I can't believe this didn't lead to ejections.

The players left the field THEN you entertained a manager's request for help? Why didn't you just wait for the other team to get on the field and warmup, too?

When the manager comes out, simply say "I'm not asking my partner." Then go out to right field, enjoy the between-inning break, and start the next half-inning.

Managers are not ENTITLED to appeal plays. Umpires are not REQUIRED to appeal anything, except a check swing.

My first inclination was to "fix it" and that is what I told my partner we would do. As soon as I said those words to my partner, I realized that the defense had already cleared the field. I then told partner the manager was too late to appeal the play.

I went to the manager and told him that his appeal was too late since the defense had left the field. He did not rant and rave. He calmly stated "this isn't right". He said he wanted to protest my decision. I halted play and got the tournament director involved. I explained what had happened to the TD and that the manager was protesting my decision not to accept his appeal. I also explained that once the defense had left the field, his opportunity to appeal had gone away, by rule. TD agreed and told the manager his protest was denied. Manager didn't like it, but he accepted the decision and he even thanked me for getting the TD involved in the decision. His team was getting pounded and it was just a matter of time before the game would be over anyhow. It never got heated and I never felt there was any need to escalate the situation by throwing coaches.

I felt bad that I blew the call by missing the pulled foot. I felt worse for the team because their manager and coaches hadn't been paying attention to the game and how they were supposed to appeal the call.

<b>How should this situation have been handled and what should have been the final ruling?</b>

"Say, coach, why didn't you wait until the team got on the bus to ask me? We're not discussing a judgment call that occured in the previous half inning."

Like Rich, I'm amazed there were no ejections on this call. Was it T-Ball?

Just for the record, I agree with Rich and Garth that you shouldn't have entertained the coach's request to even check with your partner on that judgement decision. See OBR 9.02(a) for the possible consequences of the coach's action.

That said, here is how you are expected to handle these situations:<ol><li>Only get help from your partner BEFORE you make a call on the play, and then only if absolutely necessary<p><li>If you were unsighted, point to your partner and ask "<i>Bill, did he hold the base?</i>"<p><li>When your partner responds, THEN make your "<i>Safe</i>" or "<i>Out</i>" call as appropriate. Make sure you include the "<i>He was OFF the bag</i>" call, and signal with both arms sweeping away from the base in the direction the fielder was off the base.<p><li>NEVER ask AFTER you've made your judgement call AND you've been approached by a manager or coach, as a matter of good game management.</ol>You can change your own mind on any judgement call, even though that's evidence of bad mechanics, although some calls are NOT reversable once they've been made during live play. But once you have been approached by a participant, only clear rule misapplications should result in any variation to your original call. Judgement calls are NOT protestable. If a coach approaches you after you've made such a call, simply say<ul> "<i>Sorry, coach, that's a judgement call and I've already made my decision. If I had your view on the play I might have seen it differently. That's baseball.</i>"</ul>Hope this helps.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 11th, 2003 at 06:58 PM]

Thanks Warren. You provided the info I was looking for.

you arent required to appeal check swings. if you as a plate umpire feel that it is questionable you can ask for help, but it is certainly not required.

<b>you arent required to appeal check swings. if you as a plate umpire feel that it is questionable you can ask for help, but it is certainly not required.</b>

OBR 9.02 (c) comment, second paragraph:

<I>"Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of a ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire<b> MUST</b> refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the halfswing."</I>

Oh yeah you sure are :)

That is the one play where you are REQUIRED to check your call.

If there was doubt in your mind that you may have missed the call, then you handled it properly. Don't acquiesce to a coach's request simply to appease him. Check your partner only if you feel there may have been something that you missed in the call <u><B>AND</u></B> that your partner was in better position to see that point of question than you were. Don't seek his opinion on the timing of the play.

The coach initiated his appeal when the play ended, regardless of how long it took. Still, the decision is not bound to the restrictions of....until all infielder including the pitcher leave fair territory. That restriction is for appeal of baserunning infractions only. This was not a baserunning infraction. This decision is bound to whether you wish to accept it or not.

<hr width=50%>
Getting help and changing an obviously blown call is neither wrong nor illegal.
I am not saying it should always be done, nor am I saying it should be used as crutch for initially poor judgment calls. What I am saying, however, is that it is <u>not illegal</u> for the responsible official to change his judgment call---under any set of baseball rules. OBR supports it, PBUC supports it, Fed supports it, and NCAA supports it. None will tell you that it is good mechanics. However, it is preferred to correct an obvious mistake instead of living with an obviously poor call---OBR, PBUC, and NCAA specifically state that while the Fed examples it in caseplay.

The best mechanic is to seek that help from the PU before making the call at 1B if you are in doubt concerning a pulled foot or a swipe tag. Consider the runner safe until out. That is, word your question to the PU such that his postive response of "YES" results in an out.
<ol><li>Did he hold the base?
<LI>Did you see a tag?</ol>
What you are truly saying is that you did not see those actions occur and that you have the runner safe pending that added information.

<hr width=50%>
Situations of seeking help on a pulled foot should seldom arise except for instances where you start in C position in a 2 man crew. Don't listen to those who tell you inability to judge a pulled foot is weak umpiring---it's not. It's a weakness in a 2 man system; not the umpire.

AS BU you are responsible for the first call in the infield---which could be at 3B. You can't always abandon a mid-field location if there is possibility the first play will be at 3B. Therefore, you can't always position yourself for the best angle at 1B on a pulled foot if the play happens to go there.
PU frequently has a better angle a play, and that's especially true if the play develops with F3 reaching directly toward you. If you've got a crappy angle, PU is likely to have a much better angle.

Furthermore, in working with unfamiliar partners---something common in amateur baseball---you can't always be certain your PU is watching the foot at 1B. That can make it difficult to check him before making a call at 1B---something that <u>must</u> be done even when you are in doubt regarding the touch of the foot. Many PU's hightail to 3B for plays that never occur, thus never watching the play at 1B (something I was taught to always watch). If you go to him immediately, you risk the chance of getting a "deer in the headlights" response from someone who saw nothing at 1B. If you know your partner and are confident he's there to assist, or if you've discussed it pregame, then go to him before making this call. If you don't immediately seek help <u>but are in doubt regarding a tag or a pulled foot</u>, I'd recommend a safe call since it allows play to continue. It's much easier to change a safe call to out vs. out to safe should you later elect to seek that help for whatever reason.

<hr width=50%>
Here's an excerpt from a post made by Jon Bible, an ex-professional and reknowned veteran college umpire having worked 7 College World Series.
He posted this 5/6/02 at URC:
<ul>A couple of years ago I banged the back end of a double play at first, with the first baseman stretching toward me (toward right field). As soon as I did, all hell broke loose and here came the first base and head coaches. Right there I had a small hint that something was not right. When I looked up and saw David Wiley at second base easing toward me, it was immediately apparent from his body language that he was coming not to get the troops off of me and make it a one-on-one, but instead to tell me something. So I immediately put my hands up and said "Wait a second. . . " and asked Wiley if the foot had come off the bag. He said, "only about two feet or so," so I immediately changed the call.
[my emphasis]
The point is that Wiley did not jump right in yelling "his foot was off the bag," but instead created a situation in which I would know to ask for help and then do so. IMHO, that is the best way to handle judgment plays, unlike rule plays, where I continue to believe what I have already said earlier.</ul>
<hr width=50%>
To those advocating it's wrong to seek help or change a call, I ask:
<ol><li>Can you provide any <u>authoritative</u> written training or documentation that negates the emphasis of the rules bodies regarding the official's need to attempt to get the call correct over his perceived dignity?
<li>Why is PU taught to go down the 1B line and watch the play if not for the purpose of providing help, if needed, and to watch for balls going to DBT?</ol>
When you are certain your partner, the PU, is prepared to answer your question of doubt,
<u>it looks like and is great team coordination</u> in seeking his help and getting the call right.

<b>There is no dignity in adhering an obviously blown call if the situation allows for its correction.</b>


Just my opinion,

Freix

Excellent explanation Bfair......and the correct process as well. Hopefully a couple of the prior posters to this subject will read and understand the right way to handle this situation.

What Rubbish!
 

Rubbish! OBR 9.02(a) says:<ul>Any umpire's decision which involves judgement, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is <b>final</b>. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgement decisions.{<i>my emphasis</i>}</ul>Furthermore, OBR 2.00 defines ILLEGAL as "<i>contrary to these rules</i>".

Taking the two provisions and using them properly in concert you get the following facts:<ol><li>Judgement decisions are NOT appealable, or even open to question<p><li>Any player, manager, coach or substitute who objects to a judgement decision is clearly in breach of the provisions of Rule 9.02(a) - regardless of how polite was their approach or how "right" they feel they may be on the facts as <i>they</i> saw them.<p><li>Appealing a judgement decision contrary to the provisions of Rule 9.02(a) is ILLEGAL, because that act IS "<i>contrary to these rules</i>".<p><li>Changing a judgement decision that the rule describes as "<b>final</b>" is also "<i>contrary to these rules</i>" and so ILLEGAL by definition.</ol>It is certainly NOT illegal for an umpire to <i>change his mind</i> on any judgement call. But that should only occur BEFORE he has made a decision AND BEFORE he has been approached by a participant objecting to or "appealing" that decision. It IS "illegal" - ie. "<i>contrary to these rules</i>" - for a judgement decision to even be questioned by a participant, much less changed as the direct result of such an illegal objection or appeal.

Only RULE MISAPPLICATIONS are properly open to appeal under OBR 9.02(b) and (c). Take note that 9.02(c), mandating the seeking of help from another umpire in response to an appeal, ONLY applies in respect of such RULE MISAPPLICATIONS and clearly does NOT apply in regard to JUDGEMENT DECISIONS. Getting help otherwise would be "<i>contrary to these rules</i>, and so also ILLEGAL by definition!

I do NOT propose to have anything further to say to BFair on this subject. I believe I have set the record straight with this post in response. I will NOT be drawn into a protracted debate with BFair over such ridiculous claims as have been made here. BFair well knows my views on the subject, and is merely trolling for the reopening of an old argument. He's out of luck!

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 12th, 2003 at 08:13 AM]

sorry, didnt realize you were talking OBR rules. im wrong on that then.

For the record...
 

I do need to make two things perfectly clear, as regards the changing of judgement calls:<ol><li>There are certain times when the umpire <b>must</b> "<i>change his mind</i>" in order to correct an "<i>obviously blown call</i>". Here are just three salient examples:

<ol type="i"><li>Changing a call of Fair to Foul - permitted because no game action can follow the call of Foul.<p><li>Changing a call of Foul to Fair - permitted only providing the change is almost immediate, and not participant has reacted to the original call.<p><li>Changing a call of Out to Safe - immediately after having noticed the ball on the ground following the Out call.</ol>
There are at least five (5) such occasions when changing an obviously blown judgment call is traditionally mandated. None of those would normally be possible AFTER an illegal objection from a participant.<p><li>The fact that a judgement decision that is "<b>final</b>" may NOT be LEGALLY changed, according to OBR 9.02(a), does NOT prevent an umpire from changing that call anyway. It would be extremely unlikely that any protest argument would be entertained on that point. There are so many things that umpires do according to History and Tradition that are clearly ILLEGAL, by the literal wording of the rules, that I doubt any protest committee would want to open that particular can of worms.</ol>All the same, just because a judgement call CAN be changed in certain circumstances does not mean that it SHOULD be changed. I have pointed out before that the umpire has TWO responsibilities under OBR 9.01(a)<ol><li>Conduct of the game in accordance with the rules, and<p><li>The maintenance of discipline and order on the playing field.</ol>Umpires who repeatedly change their judgement decisions will often find themselves embroilled in rampant ill-discipline and disorder on the playing field. Umpire dignity may not be the be-all and end-all where judgement decisions are concerned, but it is an <i><b>essential</b></i> element for effective game management. That is why umpires MUST be circumspect about changing their judgement decisions.

The case given earlier where respected NCAA umpire Jon Bible changed an obviously blown judgement call was an excellent example of the umpire choosing his game management role in preference to the sanctity of his judgement call BECAUSE ill-discipline and disorder were already in evidence. I'd be willing to bet there were many, MANY more occasions in his illustrious career where he has stuck with a marginally less obvious blown call for the sake of maintaining his authority on the diamond throughout the balance of the game.

Finally, before anyone naively recites the provisions of the <i>General Instructions to Umpires</i> that follow OBR 9.05(c) in the rule book, they should first read, mark and inwardly digest the entire contents of Section 7 of the NAPBL/PBUC Umpire Manual. That supercedes the copy of General Instructions in the rule book, just like any other interpretation, and it makes significant variances to the language of the rule book version.

Particular attention should be paid to NAPBL/PBUC 7.22(1) in regard to when and why an umpire should ask for help. Be especially careful to try and understand what it means for your "<i>objective</i>" to be "<i>to have all decisions ultimately correct</i>", as opposed to the rule book admonition that "<i>the first requisite is to get decisions correctly</i>". They are most certainly NOT one in the same thing. If anyone is interested I'd be happy to provide an example that proves the difference.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 12th, 2003 at 06:10 PM]

Re: For the record...
 

Once again, Warren, you play word games on <u>your speculation</u> of what is meant rather than just reading what is there. While you list some of the <u>examples</u> that have been provided to us, <b>you obviously fail to understand the concept</b> that covers other possibilities. The rulesmakers use examples, Warren, to teach concepts.

You speculation was muddied on your ill-interpreted understanding of Type B obstruction, and you were proven wrong. You also did so you with your conjured interpretation of "missing" a base (LOL), and you were proven wrong. It's not even worth the time here, Warren. As stated, OBR, PBUC, NCAA, and Fed all show getting the call right to be more important than protecting your ill-perceived loss dignity.

<b>There is no dignity in maintaining an obviously poor decision</b>,
especially when the answer is easily at hand---as it was for Jon Bible.
Somehow <u>your</u> inability to understand that doesn't surprise me, Warren............

http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/bits/images/koalani_f.gif


Freix

Back to your original scenerio......I disagree with the explanation of a couple posts. I think you make the out/safe call based on which arrived at the base first. If the ball beat the runner, call him/her out. You don't take the possible pulled foot into consideration at all. Now if the first base coach or even the manager sitting in the dugout thinks the 1B came off the bag and requests you ask for help, fine....ask. If the PU saw the pulled foot, do the right thing and change your call.

Sounds good in theory, refman, but let's see if it stands up in practice. Consider this play:<ul>R1, 0 outs. Batter smacks a grounder deep in the hole that the F6 only just manages to get a handle on. Seeing R1 is easily safe at 2nd, he instead fires to 1st for a play on the B-R. F3 stretches toward 3rd and comes off the base very early, but as BU you didn't clearly see that even though you had your suspicions. You rule the B-R OUT, because the ball beat the runner, as F3 fires across to F5 for a very close tag out on R1 sliding into 3rd. When questioned later, your partner says F3 pulled off the base by at least 2 feet on the play at 1st. Place the runner(s).</ul>Ask yourself these two questions before answering:<ol><li>Would the B-R have been able to make it to 2nd on the attempted play at 3rd if you had ruled him "Safe"?<p><li>Would R1 have been "Out" at 3rd absent the shortened throw from F3?</ol>My point is that once you've made a decision in continuing play, it can be virtually impossible to unravel what follows IF you allow an illegal appeal against your judgement call. There are times when changing the call IS the best option. If there had been no R1 in the above play, you could ask for help immediately F3 gloved the ball - no need to wait for an uproar, providing you already had your suspicions. Ask first, THEN decide the outcome of the play.

OTOH with R1, or any other runner advancing on the play, you don't have that luxury. You have to make a call, and if it's a bad call you often have to eat it, because the continuing play demands that. Just because you CAN change a bad call doesn't mean you always SHOULD.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Re: For the record...
 

Thanks for putting my little mate in there. You saved me the trouble!

It doesn't surprise me, Warren, that he is your little "mate."
He certainly has a look of contentment.

Now, while you say "blah, blah, blah"..........
are you sure you didn't mean "bah, bah, bah"........
A sound you might be far more familiar with...........LOL


Freix

Freix, this post just betrays the FILTHY way in which your mind works. Australian's use the word "mate" the way Americans use the word "buddy", but I'm sure you already KNEW that. I guess the absence of any true "buddy" is what makes you so bitter and twisted.

Have a nice day.

Warren.....you're missing the point on this one. Your long, detailed explanation/rule references regarding "judgement" are not being disputed. On a pulled foot situation, the umpire making the call from the "C" position makes his out/safe call using his "judgement" at the time. From that point, if there was a pulled foot, witnessed by the plate umpire, and questioned by the 1st base coach (or other qualified offensive representative), and if the appropiate steps are taken by the offense to request the base umpire to please check with the plate umpire....then proper mechanics and common sense dictate to do do. If the foot was pulled, and the PU tells the BU in their private little discussion, then the BU changes his call to "get it right". Plain and simple.....no "judgement" .....that was used to make the out/safe call. And you make the out/safe call before asking the plate ump for any kind of help.

Perhaps we'll have to A2D, Refman, because I understand your point perfectly but I think you're off base on several counts:<ol><li>Allowing an appeal on a judgement decision is breach of 9.02(a)<p><li>Changing a judgement decision once you've made it is a breach of 9.02(a)<p><li>If you ignore points 1 and 2, then you leave yourself open to question on EVERY judgement decision with which the coach(s) disagree<p><li>If you ignore points 1 and 2 there will be occasions, like the play I presented in my last response, where you simply CANNOT unravel what has happened since your initial judgement decision - it becomes a lose-lose course to follow.</ol>There is good reason for the rules requiring that judgement decisions are "<b>final</b>", and are NOT open to question. If you entertain one such objection then you are bound to entertain them ALL, or be accused of discrimination and bias. Rule 9.02(a) was intended to protect umpires from that very eventuality. It was codified in the full knowledge that adhering to the rule might mean an occasional "bad" call may go uncorrected.

Please, Refman, try to look at the BIG picture. The game is WAY bigger than simply getting an individual Safe/Out call "right". Getting one call "right" may even cost you your ability to control the whole game. Despite BFair's naive protestations, this isn't about preserving umpire dignity for its own sake. It is about the maintenance of necessary authority for the good of the game and in the best interests of all participants. It's about GAME MANAGEMENT. Umpire's make judgement calls, NOT coaches, managers, players or spectators. It takes some officials years to learn that lesson. Some NEVER learn it. I hope you do not fall in the latter category.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 16th, 2003 at 08:05 AM]

I was asked to work a LL Majors District tournament this weekend. I call mainly high school and college ball and haven't been on a 60' baseball small diamond in over a decade. I figured it would be fun.

It was, although this thread reminds me of a play that happened during the one game when I was working the plate.

There was a BR that came around first a bit too far with my partner in the middle. The fielder threw over and F3 was off the bag towards second and attempted a swipe tag at the runner that was heading back towards first base. My partner called SAFE and from my position it was a HECKUVA call as I saw about six inches between glove and runner on the swipe.

I am about to get in position for the next batter and the shortstop asks for time. I grant it.

He says, "We appeal."

I'm seriously confused. I said, "You're appealing what?"

He said, "That tag at first base."

I laughed. I said, "That's his call and he's made it." Then I called the batter to the plate.

The coach was not happy with me. Apparently this kinda garbage goes on all the time in the regular season here. I guess I'm not a regular season umpire, then. I did tell him that if he wanted to discuss a call with an umpire, HE needs to call time and talk with the umpire that made the call.

There is an umpire responsible for a call. He makes it to the best of his ability. Then the play is over and we move on. I don't care if it's LL or MLB.

Friex: How many times are you going to cut-and-paste your tired argument here? How many times are you going to invoke Jon Bible's name and an obvious third world play to try to generalize it to our everyday situations?

Rich

Rich, as long as the question keeps arising, I see no reason not to continue to post my answer. Others seem to answer......

As for your situation of the player asking you for an appeal, I wouldn't necessarily believe it's an everyday occurrene---as you seem to imply---simply because someone asked an umpire for an appeal. I think your response was good, but I also feel the defense should have followed up with your partner if they were serious about their appeal. They apparently chose not to or didn't know any better. That's their problem.

Still, I wouldn't feel annoyed. Would you have thought differently or reacted differently to their appeal if he had called the runner out while you saw the same 6" gap that was obvious from your angle? You might if you were the among the players on the short end of a bad call and the result could seriously effect being knocked out of this year's tourney. So much of it, Rich, may be perspective. Are you there to serve the umpire's dignity, or are you there to serve the players?

Even if they had asked your partner in that situation, it's still HIS decision to check you, and he shouldn't check his partner unless he had doubts regarding his call. But if he did have those doubts, what is so wrong in getting the call right? Would you have thought so poorly of him for getting the call right by seeking your help as opposed to blowing the call? Or would you be in the bar the next day talking about the ump you worked with yesterday that blew an obvious call during a big game? That happens also, Rich. While some mention names in such discussions, others do not. But pure and simple......umpires talk.

Some officials may argue that honoring an appeal will lead to further, repeated requests for appeal. Do <u>YOU</u> think you could have handled that situation of repeated requests? I have confidence you could....so where is there a problem? The problem would be if you couldn't handle the repeated requests. I don't fear repeated, frivolous appeals, Rich, because I know I can handle them. Do you fear them, Rich?

I've addressed this issue in generality this summer with several HS coaches and a college coach. All agreed that they'd much rather have an umpire willing to seek help on an obviously blown call than one who won't---one who is from the old school of appearing as an arrogant a$$ and caring less about whether a call is correct or not. They agreed they'd rather see the official seek help on such blown calls even when it means they are on the short end of the call. They know they then have an official concerned about trying to get the calls right moreso than his perception of his personal godliness. They know that personal godliness may come back to haunt them later. They can live with playing the game fairly---including fair and accurate judgments.

While many officials on the net may advocate against it, we've seen calls reversed in the pros, we've seen it on our own fields (even if we were not the responsible official), and we can easily locate the rules and examples provided us by OBR, PBUC, NCAA, and Fed (and Jon Bible) that provide their position that when in certain instances of doubt that help should be sought. IMO, it seems the officials not seeking that help---when it could truly be useful---are a significant minority.

<b>There is no dignity in maintaining an obviously blown call.</b>
If you feel certain of the call, merely state that, state you feel no need to get help on something you feel certain of, and get on with the game. <u>But when you are in doubt</u>, why not attempt to assure the call is correct? A discussion with your partner may serve to confirm that you, indeed, got it right to begin with......


Just my opinion,

Freix

I would tell my partner what I saw if he asked, Steve, but I would expect that he not put OUR CREW in that situation.

See, I don't always think that the correct call is the right call. I would rather eat a bad call once in a while than have the coaches come out and make those frivolous requests that you speak of. I'd rather send the message that each of us has responsibilities and that not liking a call isn't an invitation to try to find an umpire that will provide a call he DOES like.

Missed calls are part of sports and part of life. I'm sure the kids will survive such tragedy.

Rich

Hallelujah!

Furthermore, umpiring by your preference, Rich, is actually also the way the RULES REQUIRE - ie. no appeals of judgement decisions! [9.02(a)].

Cheers

From JEA Rule 9.02(a) [the rule you choose to reference] :
<ul><b>Customs and Usage: </b>One of the most distinguishing features of the game of Baseball is its proliferation of arguments. Through the years, umpires have taken a more lenient position than that promulgated by the league officials of the 19th century.

Unlike football which has the "unsportsmanlike conduct" penalty, basketball which has the "technical" foul, or hockey which provides the "penalty box", Baseball has no intermediate penalty to control misconduct toward its officials. The more serious penalty of "ejection" is the only control the Baseball umpire is provided by rule. Therefore, it has become necessary for the umpire to tolerate limited objections to his decisions and to allow discussion on controversial plays.</ul>
Welcome to the 21st century, Warren---if you care to join most of the other officials who have left the 19th century. Today's officials accept discussions and appeals. It has been proven that an official's decision is not final <u>until the official says it is final</u>. Even your support of the infamous "List of Five" is proof that calls can be changed after the original decision. The list of 5 includes <u>examples</u>, but in reality there may be more that follow the <b>concept</b> of correcting a call when the responsible official is aware of his error and has opportunity to correct it.

Since you accept Evans' writings elsewhere, why is it that you don't accept it here?
Are you merely picking and choosing that which you wish to accept?
That is what it seems......

And while Rich seems adverse to gaining help when necessary due to his <u>fear</u> of frivolous appeals that may resultantly ensue, in actuality that fear is not a reality that becomes a problem. Most officials easily handle those situations if they occur.

It remains the choice of the official, however, as to whether he personally wishes to drive the 19th century vehicle or accept the newer, better vehicle of the 21st century that has evolved through the trial and error of rulemaking and rule interpretation. Certainly the directions provided by OBR, PBUC, NCAA, and Fed wish us to drive today's model vs. that of yesteryear. However, some still prefer to drive the old Model T...........


Just my opinion,

Freix

Fear? I have no fear. Rather I have confidence in my partner and confidence in the system. The mechanics system put in place gives judgement calls to one and only one umpire. That umpire gets into the best position he can and makes his call the best he can. IMO, THAT is what's best for the game.

I have been officiating HS sports since I turned 18 (I'm 34). I have enough confidence and experience that I could get away with "appealing" to my partner. I have no fear of doing so; however, I don't feel it is in the best interest of the game.

Getting each call individually correct is not necessarily doing what is right for the game. Or the game.

Rich

I should have my head examined for bothering with this, but...
 

I have underlined the operative words, from JEA, in your own quote above. None of those words equates with your often used and abused "<b>appeals</b>" in relation to judgement decisions. Final means exactly what it says. Once a judgement decision has been made it may not legally be altered, even by the official who made that decision.

I, too, am happy to hear "<i><u>limited</u> objections</i>" and to entertain <u>reasonable</u> "<i>discussion on controversial plays</i>". That doesn't mean that I will accede to ANY demand to "get help" on a judgement call OR change that call AFTER such "<i>limited objections</i>" and "<i>discussions</i>" have been heard. To do so would be ILLEGAL.

Of course, we umpires frequently do things that are ILLEGAL according to the letter of the rules in the name of historical interpretation, traditional practice or GAME MANAGEMENT. That has been my position all along. You have continued to ignore that position purely because you have long had an issue with Carl Childress, the author of that "<i>infamous List of Five</i>" as you call it, and because I dared to challenge the contemporary value of your precious 19th Century <i>General Instructions to Umpires</i>. Another case of the Freix pot calling the kettle "black". Please do us all a favor and get over your long held personal prejudices and for pity's sake GROW UP, both as an official and as a poster to this forum!

BTW, I am still waiting for your apology for those earlier stupid, gratuitous and disgusting personal remarks implying I might have sexual proclivities toward animals! I'll have nothing further to say to you on any subject before then! Of couse I'm NOT holding my breath!

Have a nice day.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 17th, 2003 at 10:35 AM]

<b>Missed calls are part of sports and part of life. I'm sure the kids will survive such tragedy.
</b>

Oh, ye gads. Now you've done it.

Re: I should have my head examined for bothering with this, but...
 

Certainly you are correct, Warren, that it was a cheap shot.
It came as a counter-punch to the cheap shots you took at me in a different thread. I believe you were the first to allow the rhetoric to sway from the truth. I doubt if anyone truly believed me about your "mate", as it was clear to see that you had twisted the words within the other thread. My apologies for the low blow. (I hope you won't consider that apology an illegally reversed decision).

While we will always likely disagree on this subject, it's certainly up to other readers to choose for themselves what is best for them. Obviously Rich and Garth may be of the same school as you---supported by 19th century written rule and custom.

OTH, I truly believe that I am in the majority of umpires on this issue. That includes the majority from all levels. While depending on your partner to make your calls is not and should not be a regularity among officials, officiating in all of sport (including baseball) continues to grow and to further lean toward the importance of getting the call right at the cost of the embarrassment it may mean to the responsible official. Still, that action of changing a call and risking embarrassment still remains the choice of the responsible official---an important point to note. It is not a "demand" put upon him, but rather his choice as an option when asked to reconsider <u>all</u> the factors of the decision that are available to him. Frankly, Warren, I am far more embarrassed by an obviously blown call than I am a reversed decision. The teams prefer more accurate play calling, so both support the best choice for me to make.

<b>Not a single rules body says it is illegal to change a call---only you, Warren.</b>
New interpretations continue to evolve, and you are simply wrong when you state it is "illegal" to change a call. Current interpretation allows for it, and the various rules bodies in written word promote correcting a call when possible. There are many more precedents accepted within the leagues playing under those rules. Somehow, you continue to ignore those writings, Warren.........


Freix

Re: Re: I should have my head examined for bothering with this, but...
 

No, I don't "<i>consider that apology an illegally reversed decision.</i>" In fact <u>I don't consider it an apology at all</u>! You make it sound as though it was MY fault that you resorted to those disgusting personal implications about my sexual proclivities! You water it down even further by suggesting it was only a "low blow" in what might otherwise be considered a "fair fight"(sic).

Fact: I have NEVER referred to your sexual proclivities, sexual orientation or anything else so patently personal and irrelevant - especially not to counter a logical argument about umpiring on a discussion board! Let me leave you with a homily that might serve you well in future:<ul><b>BRILLIANT MINDS DISCUSS IDEAS

AVERAGE MINDS DISCUSS EVENTS

SMALL MINDS DISCUSS PEOPLE</B></UL>The air between us remains decidely foul smelling and unclear.

Have a nice day.

Gee,we ALL get along on the basketball forum!

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Animal/datewyom.jpg

<b>While we will always likely disagree on this subject, it's certainly up to other readers to choose for themselves what is best for them. Obviously Rich and Garth may be of the same school as you---supported by 19th century written rule and custom.</b>


Cute. You've certainly learned a lot in the last four years Freix. I'm sure everyone is impressed with your rhetorical skills. You not only position others where you wnat them, you even provide the basis for their backward thinking and ignorant ways. How thoughtful you've become.

You guys are diggin.....
 

Deeper than I would go! All-star kid ball here....PONY "white-coats" have meetings with managerial staffs(mgr/coach/business mgr), some of the rules they impose are crazy!

But, back to this "HELP" thing, very simple...check swing, always(cuz the ask is coming, I agree with Osborne on this) Pulled foot at first, GET YOUR CALLS!!! I tell the skippers, "don't come out on judgement calls" But then again, I take my time and get it right...the plays at the sacks call themselves!!! If umps did not have that natural propensity to "call the play as fast as you can", we would not even be here! TIMING!!!!!!!!

Indeed, Chris, and as Mr Evans tells anyone who attends his 5 week school in Florida:<ul>GOOD TIMING = THE PROPER USE OF THE EYES.</ul>IOW, if you wait until you've seen ALL there is to see on the play BEFORE making your call, then you are unlikely to get caught out making obviously bad calls.

Cheers

Not necessarily
 

I appreciate all that has been written in this thread about when and how (and when not) to allow an "appeal" of a judgement call. I had no idea my scenario would generate such a debate. I think the dead horse has been thoroughly beaten by now. It also seems obvious that there are no clear cut absolutes on the topic.

With regard to my original scenario... I saw everything I was going to see before I made my call. I could have waited for three days to make the out call and I would still NOT have seen the pulled foot by F3 from the C position.

Since there is no apparent accepted practice for handling this type of situation, it seems that each individual must let his conscience be his guide in handling any given scenario. Thanks for your thoughts.

<b>I appreciate all that has been written in this thread about when and how (and when not) to allow an "appeal" of a judgement call... It also seems obvious that there are no clear cut absolutes on the topic.</b>

You have observed correctly.

<b>With regard to my original scenario... I saw everything I was going to see before I made my call. I could have waited for three days to make the out call and I would still NOT have seen the pulled foot by F3 from the C position.</b>

That being the case, you probably did the right thing. All some of us are suggesting is that when that happens, when you feel you absolutely need to get help, go ahead, but don't stop there. Afterwards, spend the time to analyze why you didn't see what you needed to see and try to determine if there was something you could have done, something you can do in the future, to see what you need to see to not need help.


[Edited by GarthB on Jul 18th, 2003 at 10:27 AM]

I agree with Garth.

Don't use this experience as something that validates your choice in going for help. Rather, evaluate your mechanics that put you in that place.

I'm in C. Ground ball to F6. As the ball is hit, I'm stepping up and letting the ball turn me, cross-stepping towards the working area behind the mound. Once I determine the ball is going to first base, I take a few quick steps towards the start of the 45' lane and come set in time for the ball to arrive.

It takes a lot of practice and a lot of hustle to work the bases correctly.

Too many times I've had partners come to me for help on plays like this (where they start in C). When they ask, they are still standing near the C position. Those umpires don't need to know whether asking for help is OK, they need to know if moving after the ball is hit is OK :-)

Rich

Sorry, Rich, but in big boy ball you can't overcommit to 1B too soon. The first play in the infield belongs to BU unless at home. R2 may be too far off 2B drawing a throw there, or possibly even advancing to 3B. You don't always know where F6 will go with his play, but it's usually BU's call.

Big boys throw harder and provide little time for covering distance or adjusting angles after showing their commitment of the throw. If that throw to 1B is off-line it may cause F3 to reach directly toward BU. There is no way YOU or anyone can predict that or adjust for it within a second or two.

The 2-man system is inherently weak with BU starting in C position. It's the system, not the person; yet some people can react better within the system no differently then some have better zones than others. Still, there is no fail-safe on this play. It can happen to anyone.

Don't let anyone make you believe you are a weak umpire or have poor mechanics because you may occasionally get straight-lined by F3 reaching on a play at 1B. It happens to everyone, whether it's admitted or not.


Just my opinion,

Freix

See Rich? You do one week-end of Little League and you're not a "big boy" umpire anymore.

I warned you about going to the dark side.

I noted you didn't disagree, Garth, or provide any reasons to the contrary on how YOU manage to avoid straight-line calls when starting in C position.


Freix

Working area....
 

Nobody mentioned this fine idea of UDP/PBUC....guess we got some "stationary umps"LOL:) Garth nailed it for PatF, live and learn...Lord knows I have.as Warren says.cheers guys, me got a nice cold MGD and 3 day weekend ahead(well, MSBL on Sunday, oh well)

Hey Steve.....
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
You can always MOVE!!! Little thing they call <i>angle</i>....

I work big boy ball, Stevie. I work college, high school, MSBL, and semipro baseball. Most of my baseball in the summer is pretty high level wood bat baseball.

I still get on the first base side of the mound. Here's why:

The appropriate place for an umpire to be BEFORE the fielder commits is the working area behind the mound. It is the best place for the BU to go in EITHER direction.

EXAMPLE: R2. Ground ball to F6. The base umpire in C steps UP and opens himself up to the ball as the ball is passing him. After the ball passes the BU, he quickly cross-steps so that he is directly behind the mound.

If F6 throws to third, the BU takes a few steps to get an angle (like on a steal of third, he heads to the midpoint between third and home) and makes the call on the tag. If F6 throws to first, the BU takes a few quick steps to get an angle on the foot at first base.

Your post is condescending, but since you bothered to type rather than cut-and-paste I'll throw in some small diamond stuff since I worked my first 2 small diamond games in 10 years on Saturday. It is much harder to call this play on the small diamond. The BU in C stands BEHIND F6 and has to wait until R2 crosses in front of him before coming into the infield. Those of us on the 90 foot diamond can move and get angles without worrying about runners and fielders being in the way. I still don't remember involving the plate umpire in my job, though.

My experience umpiring is that those umpires that ask for help on swiped feet and other squirrels usually ask because they didn't work to get in the right position to make the call themselves. Some probably think: Why bother, I can just ask my partner. Well, the reason to bother is because that is solely the base umpire's call.

Rich

Rich, I agree totally with your mechanic, and that's what most use. Still, with the speed of the game, you don't get half way from behind the rubber to a corner base---not with the speed of the throws of college players. Unless, of course, you are continuing to move with the play as the throw is being received. But I was taught to set and freeze the camera..........

You can say it on paper, Rich, and it's frequently highly effective on the field. Yet there are rarities when it is not, and those are the times we have been discussing. IMO, it's better to admit that they exist---as rare as they may be---than deny that they don't. That split second throw can pull F3 in a direction straight toward the BU, and you can't see it as well as PU. It's a flaw inherent with the 2-man system, and not a weakness of the umpire.

A2D


Freix

I don't care about getting half-way to the base, though. I'm after angles.

If there's a play at third base, which would be EXTREMELY rare, I don't care if I'm on top of it. THAT'S how I reconcile the weakness of the 2-umpire system. If the throw beats the runner there, I'll call him out.

I'm getting the best position for FIRST base.

Rich

Geez, Rich, you're really in trouble now! :D

That's effectively the <b><i>second</b></i> time you've admitted to our common belief that the "correct" call might not always be the "right" call. I guess this thread is headed for a record 5th page! ;)

Cheers

3rd base is not most important
 

Rich [/B][/QUOTE]Geez, Rich, you're really in trouble now! :D

That's effectively the <b><i>second</b></i> time you've admitted to our common belief that the "correct" call might not always be the "right" call. I guess this thread is headed for a record 5th page! ;)

Cheers [/B][/QUOTE]

I think Rich makes a very valid point. Too many umpires continually cheat towards 3rd base (saying its the most important base etc) and end up getting themselves in trouble at first.

Our local group did some checks and I'm sure its pretty accurate but less than 5% of all calls are made at 3rd, and then most of them will be a second throw which involves the PU also.

Making the call at 3rd is also a lot easier with kids that shave. They generally make the tag right etc., Its the little kids that cause the problems with the bad tag, bad slide, blocking someone off the bag etc.,

So I don't think Rich is saying he doesn't care about the call at 3rd, just that's its easier to make from a longer distance.

And of course, no matter how close you are the coach always will complain on the call at 3rd since he had a great look at it, (g)

thanks
David

Re: 3rd base is not most important
 

Actually, David, Rich is saying what almost everyone but BFair has been saying since the start of the thread - getting it "correct" isn't always the same as getting it "right". There are priorities and choices to be assessed.

The whole tenor of the debate has been that, especially in 2-man mechanics, the umpire has to make choices that may mean he is not in the ideal position to make EVERY SINGLE CALL. That is NO EXCUSE for going to your partner for help ANY TIME a player, coach or manager complains that from his angle you got it wrong.

GET YOUR OWN CALLS! We've been chanting that mantra to BFair throughout the debate, but he still wants to see umpires ignoring 9.02(a) and going for help anytime a coach, manager or player "appeals" a judgement decision.

I believe Rich was simply saying, in his own inimitable and shorthanded fashion,<ul>"<i>I'll call what I see - the ball beat the runner - and it won't matter whether I've seen an actual tag or not, he's Out! NO QUESTION/OBJECTION/APPEAL/DEMAND/REQUEST to get help will be entertained!</i>"(sic)</ul>I merely suggested to Rich that saying that again was just another invitation for BFair to restate his argument for the umpteenth time. If this debate were any reflection on BFair's on-field skills, IMO that would be the only ump-anything that he was any good at. :D

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 20th, 2003 at 05:11 AM]

Actualy, Warren, I'm getting rather tired of your constant lies (yes, Warren, that means that I am now calling you a liar) when you purposely and intentionally mistate what I have said in order to support your weak argument. This is not the first time you have lowered yourself to that level.

You state:
<ul>GET YOUR OWN CALLS! We've been chanting that mantra to BFair throughout the debate, but he still wants to see umpires ignoring 9.02(a) and going for help anytime a coach, manager or player "appeals" a judgement decision. </ul>
Warren, I challenge you to show where in this thread or any thread I've stated or implied that an umpire should be <b>"going for help <u>anytime</u> a coach, manager or player "appeals" a judgement decision."</B>
This is a lie, Warren, and you are smart enough to know this is not what I have stated.
<font size=+1>Provide your proof of this statement, Warren,
else all will know it is a lie......</font size=+1>

With your lies, Warren, <u>you attempt to portray</u>, that which is not so.
You do that purposely. What I've indicated is that it is not illegal to do so. That disagrees with your opinion---an opinion for which you have not yet provided a single statment from the rules to support you. All you have is "your interpretation" that it is illegal which is based on your twisting of words from the rules. Yet arriving at your interpretation you <u><B>continually ignore</b></u> the actual statements provided in the rulebooks, rulings, and examples made by OBR, NCAA, PBUC, and Fed indicating that not only is it not illegal, it is desirable. An official should put his perceived dignity secondary to his need to get the call right when he's made an obviously blown call. If you want me to provide the writings to support that, Warren, I will. You know they are there, and there's no need for redundancy.

Advocate your opinion if you so desire, Warren, but cease from stooping to your twisted lies to denigrate and open to ridicule those who feel differently than you, and those who, unlike yourself, do not ignore the directives and examples provided by the rulesmakers.


Freix

I guess Warren's right -- this IS heading for a fifth page.

Both Warren and David are right. I head to the back of the mound because the play at third is unlikely. I also head there because getting the angle at first is more important.

I don't care too much if there's an actual tag at third. The correct call when a throw beats a runner by a considerable amount is OUT. Since this play happens 1-in-20 times, I'm not worried about it too much.

Rich

First of all I have no intention of answering certain inflamatory allegations while ever the person making them remains uncontrite for their previous foul, personal suggestions.

That said, I would like to summarise what I think is the sensible position adopted by most experienced officials on this question of getting help:<ol><li>Earnestly work to continually improve your mechanics so you WON'T get caught out on a pulled foot, swipe tag or any other judgement call.<p><li>If you DO get "straight-lined" or blocked out on a play, get help BEFORE making a decision or being approached IF POSSIBLE.<p><li>If you DO have to make a decision when unsure, for the sake of continuing live-action play, DON'T be bullied into asking for help or changing that decision later UNLESS it is one of those select few that can readily be changed without unduly impacting on all decisions made thereafter eg FAIR to FOUL.<p><li>GET YOUR OWN CALLS and let your partner get his.</ol>Hope this helps.

Cheers

Appeal of checked swing FED & OBR
 

We seem to have two threads here - One on reversal of judgement calls in which I clearly agree with the reasoning of Warren, the umpire from down under. Nice to see your posts again. The other is concerns mechanics on checked swings.

Brian 43 seems to want to make clear the requirement for the PU to appeal to BU is different in FED vs OBR. This may be true. Although I almost always officiate under OBR I would recommend that under FED rules PU check as well especially if the BU is in a position to see a swing such as RHB and A or C position or LHB in C or D position. OBR does not differentiate where BU is positioned in order to appeal although I think that the requirement (perhaps Baseball Umpire Development) that (in a three-man system) the PU must ask the "proper" ump would imply that RHB and BU in C isn't going to have much more info than the PU. Of course the PU can check on his own and should do so in all cases where on a two-strike count the pitch gets behind the catcher. Jim/NYC

Oh, my, my. Where to begin.

I agree with Steve that each official should be responsible for his own calls. That's the whole premise behind "mechanics".

I also agree with Rich that you need to be in the proper position to call the "expected" play. If however, the play goes to another base (which often happens on the small diamond), that doesn't exonerate the BU from making and living with the call.

In a 2-man system, there are very few instances where both umpires SHOULD be looking at the same play. A simple response to arguments or requests to "get some help" is, "That's my call . . . he's watching (the runner) (the batter)(the cute girl in the 3rd row). You can even make it look good by "consulting" with your partner . . . and then keeping your original call anyhow.

Jerry

Been away for a while, but after reading this entire thread I have to lend my support to Bfair.

Some will say I should have stayed away, but their entitled to their opinion.

I have found that in officiating of different sports (including baseball), there are those officials that believe that maintaining their image on the field of play, is what gets them through the contest. The thought of someone questioning their judgement is an impeachable offense, let alone, what they may perceive as a possible violation of the rules.

The official is respected and very knowledgeable of the rules. He/she is also a master of the necessary mechanics to perform there duty at a high level. This is an officials,
official. Perfect.

Now lets discuss the exceptional official.

Being approachable, yet firm and fair in their decisions, is what gains them their respect. Their confidence and rules knowledge is also exceptional however, their understanding of the game and situations, and the application of rules during those situations is what enters into their decision making and establishes their image.

They are not only masters of officiating their sport, but they also have a complete understanding of the sport and are totally confident of their ability to handle each and every event that may arise in that contest. Even if they have to walk away knowing that some of their decsions were changed, this has no effect are their self-confidence level. They are personable, yet have no problem walking away
from what others may feel is an unfavorable decision.

They are TRULY in charge of the contest they are officiating.

Having said that, each of us have to decide what type official we want to be. The one that puts image first, or the one that truly understands what their there for.

The decision to change or not change a call, will be relatively easy after that.

<b>Having said that, each of us have to decide what type official we want to be. The one that puts image first, or the one that truly understands what their (sic) there for.</b>

Putting image first can easily mean different things to different officials. Some I know want to have the image of an official who is open to go to his partner any time asked and be known as an offical who is ready to change his call.

While others I know truly understand that that is not what officials are about. They know they have to work hard to minimize the necessity of getting help. They know that once they start getting help just because they were asked, they have opened a door that will never close. Coaches remember these things and will come out questioning every close call. "You got help last inning!"

Sometimes you have to say no.

<b>The decision to change or not change a call, will be relatively easy after that.</b>

You bet.

Simple Solution
 

There really is a simple solution to the original problem of the pulled foot at 1st base. The PU is coming up the line (ostensibly to help with such issues, but really to take runner's lane violations and dead ball responsibility) on ground balls in the infield. In the event of a swipe tag or pulled foot the PU from his set position makes a mechanic with his harm hanging down in front of him; closed fist for tag or on the bag or open hand for missed tag or off the bag. This mechanic is very subtle. The BU, if he as a doubt, looks at the PU to see what he has and then renders his decision. If the PU has neither (fist or open hand) asking for help later will be futile.

This mechanic can be used in a variety of plays. It can be used for the swinging strike three in the dirt. The BU helps the PU. It can be used in run downs. It can used in plays like the one Tim Tschida had with Chuck Knaublach (sp?).

This offers a compromise between the old school live and die with your own calls and the new get help school. The help is gotten during playing action and after the play one can live and die with his call.

Think about it.

Tony Carilli

I feel you are mistating an opposing position in order to attempt to better support your position.
Garth, I don't think anyone has advocated to get help "just because they were asked."
<b>Would you cite where anyone has advocated what you just stated?</b>

In fact, it's been stated not to get help merely to appease a complaining coach. Yet, as officials we know we are sometimes <u>forced</u> to rule on plays where we know we don't have all the information we would like to have---for whatever reason. What has been advocated is to seek help if you, in such situations, feel help is necessary to get the call right (or merely to confirm your call) <u>AND</u> your partner was in position to legitimately provide such added information. We are frequently made aware of such obviously blown calls when the coach vehemently complains about the decision. Without the complaint, we have the confidence we got the call right despite our known doubt regarding the added information.

I also agree with you that officials need to "work hard to minimize the necessity of getting help." Still, you seem to acknowlege by using "minimize" that there are, indeed, times when <u>you realize</u> you may need that help. That would seem to agree with the authorities---and with me. However, I felt you were advocating never to seek that help---even when you have serious doubt about a call you were forced to make while lacking all the needed information. That, Garth, is not in agreement with the authorities.

The attitude toward not seeking help when necessary is exactly what OBR, NCAA, PBUC, and Fed have addressed.
They have stressed that in instances of decisions where you are forced to make a call, yet you know you are in doubt because you are lacking the certainty of needed information to make that call, that you be willing to seek that help to get the call right---despite how you feel it may effect your image.The authorities support getting the call right as being more important than protecting the perceived image of the official. Still, some officials choose to ignore the writings, direction, and examples provided by these sources and instead attempt to protect their perceived dignity by maintaining an obviously blown call.

While you again address the <u>fear</u> of coaches asking for frivolous appeals, I feel confident you would agree that competent officials can quickly squelch such frivolous appeals. Do you feel the authoritative sources providing us our direction in these situations were unaware of that potential of frivolous appeals thereafter? Do you feel you are adding fact that the sources were unaware of? Are you that much more insightful than the authoritative sources? Perhaps so, but I would think they would have recognized that fact and taken it into consideration when deciding upon their directions to follow.

An official seeking help when <U>HE</u> feels it's necessary does not necessarily mean he is an incompetent official. To the contrary, an official adhering to an obviously blown call is more likely to viewed as an incompetent official than one willing to make the needed correction to assure in his confidence that he's made the correct call.

<b>There is no support for maintaining this protection of the perceived dignity except for the opinion of some officials.</b>
This is a fact that some continue to ignore..........
IMO, that is an arrogance associated with past imaging of officials, and which today is viewed upon poorly by coaches as protecting your own being moreso than caring for the game-----
their game, not yours. It also displays an arrogance by ignoring the direction of the authoritative sources. Calls are changed at all levels---even MLB. It is proven in the writings of the authorities and in actual practice that it is preferred to get the call right at the cost of <u>perceived</u> dignity when an obviously blown call occurs.

<b>Their is <u>no dignity</u> in maintaining an obviously blown call.</b>


Freix



[Edited by Bfair on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 02:44 PM]

Your opinion is worth as much as anyone else's with the same level of experience - and I don't know what that is so I'm not taking a shot by saying that.

That said, although both you and that other poster make a passionate case for getting it "right" regardless of how you would look, you need to re-examine the DUAL responsibilities of officials under 9.01(a).

No-one is advocating NEVER seeking help. The advice has been to do that BEFORE making a decision, wherever possible. Only get help on a judgement call AFTER making a decision if it was a call that may reasonably be corrected given the following game action, and PROVIDED you have not first been approached by a participant in breach of 9.02(a).

Game management is not <i>just</i> a matter of umpire dignity, but try managing a game without it! Despite protestations to the contrary, even that other poster's much beloved and now superceded <i>General Instructions to Umpires</i> urged officials NOT to get help excessively, but instead to GET YOUR OWN CALLS.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 05:07 PM]

<b>No-one is advocating NEVER seeking help. </b>

Most everyone in their own way and style seems to agree that no one is advocating NEVER seeking help and also no one is advocating ALWAYS seeking help. The point of contention appears to be where the emphasis should be. It has to be somewhere.

For me. the emphasis is on training and performance. That is the hope we have to reduce the number of times that getting help is requested and more importantly, it will reduce the number of times that an umpire may feel that getting help is needed.

Some others appear, to me, by simple word count, repetition and other tactics, to be putting the emphasis on the justification of getting help. This, in my opinion, is similar to the modern public educational ploy of trying to get students to have "positive self-esteem" prior to having done anything that would create the opportunity of positive self-esteem. Sort of like, "Yes, Johnny, you only got 2 out of 20 correct, but the important part is you feel good about yourself. Think how much better Johnny would feel if he had learned well enough (or benn taught well enough) to get 20 out of 20 correct.

I have no argument that there may well be a time an umpire feels the need to get help. No need to spend bandwidth justifying that. I believe it would lead to better umpiring if we spent our energy and time on learning our craft so that those occasions are drastically reduced.

Warren....why do you keep insisting that we're dealing with "judgement" on this 5-page post? I repeat an earlier post that the judgement part of this call is made by ruling out/safe. Judgement is the criteria in all out/safe calls. The pulled foot is simply a frequent occurance that often requires the help of the plate umpire to confirm or deny such an occurance. It's usually noticed by the first base coach and he's generally the one to request you ask for help. Why make this such a tough situation?

I can't quite grasp Garth's latest point, as he seems to want it both ways. But it seems plausible to reconcile the opposing viewpoints with the following maxim: Get help if you must, but work to improve your game so you won't ordinarily need to. And since this maxim describes my own philosophy on the help issue, I paraphrase Pharoh's declaration to Moses: So let it be written, So let it be done!

<b>I can't quite grasp Garth's latest point...</b>

Sure you do.


<b>Get help if you must, but work to improve your game so you won't ordinarily need to.</b>


See? I knew you did.

Hey, refman, I'm not trying to make it tough I'm trying to make it easy.<ol><li>There is NO GOOD REASON to get help AFTER you've made your judgement decision when you could <u>just as easily</u> have gone for help BEFORE you'd made that decision. THAT was my point.<p><li>If you are FORCED, by circumstances of continuing game action, to make a judgement decision BEFORE you can get help then common sense will show that you CANNOT easily roll back the action that followed in every case.<p><li>There is a list of at least 5 occasions where you CAN roll back game action, and those are the only cases where I would recommend getting help AFTER making the call.<p><li>I would NEVER recommend getting help otherwise when approached by a participant to do so. That's BAD game management. It has nothing to do with salvaging personal dignity for its own sake.<p><li>Any umpiring decision that involves judgement is a JUDGEMENT DECISION.</ol>Now I'm pretty darn sure that I've spelled out these points before, one way or another. I don't propose to spell them out again. For the record, handling such calls the way I suggest has the following benefits:<ol type="i"><li>You won't NEED the First Base Coach's advice to "get help on that call, Blue". You'll have already done it!<p><li>You won't NEED to overturn your judgement decision. You won't have made one yet!<p><li>You won't NEED to respond to half the number of coach's questioning your judgement decisions that you would otherwise. They KNOW you would have asked if you were straight lined!<p><li>You will earn more respect and improve your game management skills.</ol>The pulled foot call (horrible description) is NOT a case of a rule misapplication. On the information available to the umpire whenever he makes the call, it is a JUDGEMENT DECISION. That is why I "<i>keep referring to judgement</i>". If you cannot grasp that then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (A2D).

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 23rd, 2003 at 12:26 AM]

Has nothing to do with what I "grasp", but rather than continue trying to explain my point.....it's time to agree to disagree.

"Your opinion is worth as much as anyone else's with the same level of experience - and I don't know what that is so I'm not taking a shot by saying that."

Your absolutely right. As is yours. Opinions are like ????,
well you know what I mean. As others have already pointed out, this discussion is applicable at ALL levels.

The image portrayed by changing a call after a judgement and decision has been made is in you words, " That's BAD game management".

Well it might be for you. However, I am confident enough at whatever level I work at to handle ANY further questions or situations that may arise as a result of changing my call. I am not afraid to say that, "I made a mistake." Even if,
in your opinion, the rule book says that I can't.

And when you think of it , that is what it comes down to. Doing, what each of us has to do, to get through are game.

Have a good day.

Warren is misinformed
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

I guess this thread is headed for a record 5th page! ;) Cheers

Warren

I recall that last year I started a 7 page topic that had 100 replies. Garth stated that this was a record. I believe that I only had one post after the original one.

The thread was a huge $hithouse by this forum's standards. However, no one ever mentioned anything about what people down under do with all those sheep :)

Peter

A frequent occurrence that often requires the help of the plate umpire?

I've asked for help on a play at first base once in the last ten seasons. It was at the MSBL World Series in Phoenix and Dave Hensley was my partner. The play was a 3-1 play where the second baseman ran right in front of me as a tag attempt was made. It was such an unusual play I remember it well.

That's it. I've been ASKED to "get help" more than that, but when I've gotten a good angle and make a call I don't understand WHY I should get help. It's my job to make that call and I make it.

The thing I don't understand in this whole discussion is that umpires seem to be making calls and THEN getting help from their partners. For me to make an out call, shouldn't I be in a position to see F3's foot on the base and then determine that the throw beat the runner? If I'm clearly screened or think that I might be missing something, wouldn't I go to my partner FIRST?

I've gotten grief for "not getting help." One time I had a manager come all the way to right field to "discuss" a play at first base after an inning ending double play where he thought (from the 3rd base coaching box, of course) that F3 pulled his foot. I refused to get help. I explained to the coach that I was doing my job and I saw the foot on the base.

In the next few innings I had more pulled feet, swipe tag plays, and other squirrels happen than I've ever had in a game before or since. I made every call with confidence and not once did a manager come out of the dugout or even question the calls. I was a new umpire in the area, I made it clear that I was going to get my own calls, and that was that. Had I gone to my partner on the first play to appease the coach and keep him from following me to right field I firmly believe that they would've been asking me to get help the rest of the game.

Mr. Freix calls that "fear." I call that game management. Letting the teams know that judgement decisions are final and that they can't look around for an sympathetic ear (umpire) every time there is a disagreement is a good thing, in my opinion.

This "attitude" has served me well for the past 15 years and Steve's has served him well or he wouldn't be arguing his side so fervently. It's time to A2D, move on, and argue something else.

Rich

<b>Garth stated that this was a record</b>


Peter:

Before the ususal cast starts demanding proof, citations and other best evidence, allow me to interject that my statement was anecdotal. I believe it to be true since I had been here from almost the start-up of the site. And, who else is more deserving of the honor of instigating, I mean <i>initiating</i> what would become the longest thread than our revered HHH? ;)

105 messages versus 102. I looked. It was close and both reached seven pages.

Getting hit in the wallet was a fun story - even more so cause it was true and I have a witness!

I had a BU partner get hit this season -- his was in a college game where the ball found him. He didn't help matters by trying to run out of the way of the ball. Instead he looked like a cartoon character whose "wheels" spin before he gets moving. He took it in the back of the heel.

Oh, wait, I'm getting off topic. Wouldn't want that to be an excuse when we add 30 more replies and have the longest thread.

Rich

Mental Health
 

Jim;

The Bible says "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The underlying assumption in this Bible wisdom is that most people love themselves.

A sign of mental stability is that one loves himself. Ah, there's the problem. Love of oneself would seem abnormal to the mentally unbalanced mind.

Peter

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was reacting to your own suggestion that your opinion might not be valued. In my own upside-down fashion I was trying to say that your opinion IS valued <b><i>at least</i></b> as much as it should be given your level of experience. I'm sorry if my regretably poor effort to encourage your input was perceived otherwise.

Neither am I "<i>afraid to say that, 'I made a mistake.'</i>" My point was that if you do it my way, the way the pro's say to do it, YOU WON'T OFTEN HAVE TO! Why? Because you'll have checked first! It has nothing to do with confidence and everything to do with doing your job properly. You are NOT entitled to make a judgement call if you DIDN'T see the factors you are supposed to be judging UNLESS the continuing game action demands that you call something! That's seldom the case on swipe tag and pulled foot calls.

That's my point - CHECK FIRST when required! That's Rich's point. That's also Garth's point. If he thinks about it, that may even be BFair's point. Only <b><i>you</b></i> want to defy the advice of the pro's and make a call when you're clearly blocked out THEN correct it later, as though that was some kind of honorable approach!

I guess that's an "I'll do it my way, you do it yours" sign off. Ok. A2D. I just don't understand why you would want to ignore the advice of the best umpires the game has to offer simply because I'm the one who brought it to you. Adds a whole new dimension to killing the messenger, wouldn't you say? Sheesh!

Have a nice day.

Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Yeah, well my remark was only intended as an off-handed comment, not a reporting of recorded fact. I was merely reacting to the amount of heat generated from such a simple beginning. For the record I'll take the word of Jim Porter that he holds it by a small margin. :)

As for what we do with sheep, we shear 'em, skin 'em, cook 'em and eat 'em! Want a demonstration? There's a few "sheep" around this board that I'd like to show that process to "first hand". :D

BTW, please stop baiting Jim Porter with cracks about mental instability. With the notable exception of BFair, there has been very little personal abuse on this board since I returned. Most of us are perfectly happy to keep it that way.

Cheers

"I guess that's an "I'll do it my way, you do it yours" sign off. Ok. A2D. I just don't understand why you would want to ignore the advice of the best umpires the game has to offer simply because I'm the one who brought it to you. Adds a whole new dimension to killing the messenger, wouldn't you say? Sheesh!"

Actually Warren, I dont understand why an official with all your experience can't understand that mabey your just not the authoratative person you think you are. "Adds a whole new dimension to killing the messenger, wouldn't you say? Sheesh!"

Have a good day.

Who pulled your chain so hard?
 

Hmmmm. Sounds to me like you've got some sort of personal axe to grind. Could this be a case of sour grapes, or even envy? If you read my posts carefully you will note that I have NOT claimed any authority for myself. Instead I've only claimed authority for the <b>professional umpires</b> whose interpretations and mechanics I've reported, and who should rightly be considered "<i>the best umpires the game has to offer</i>".

Why is it that you are so anxious to press the view that I'm "<i>just not the authoratative person</i>" I think I am? How would YOU know <i>what</i> I think? Maybe you just don't like my style of writing. Fine. I won't lose any sleep over that. The fact remains, however, that you seem inordinately opposed to anything that I've said in this thread, when all I've actually done is to quote the rules and report the current professional view on the matter.

You may choose an opposing view if you wish. That would be your loss, and that of your colleagues, IMHO.

Have a nice day.

Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Oh goodness, no. You misunderstood. I'm not the record holder either, and never claimed to be. The person who started the record thread was rex. I did take part in the thread, and so did you Warren, along with Papa C. However, Ozzy and Garth were nowhere to be found. I just found it funny that those two guys were trying to decide which among them could take credit for the longest thread, and the answer truly was neither of them. I found humor in that.

What makes you think he could bait me? I haven't had a flame or a bad word to say about anybody in two years. I haven't been in any pissing contests, no arguments, no disagreements, I just pop in every now and again to speak my mind and I'm done.

My world has changed, my cancer is in remission, I'm having a marvelous life, and nothing that happens on message boards bothers me anymore. There was a time when things weren't so good, and I took my frustrations out on message boards. I don't do that anymore. I apologized profusely for my conduct, and folks were more than welcome to accept it or not. Most did not. While that's a shame, I didn't lose sleep.

I will not forget, however, how people like Garth and Ozzy and Blaine treated me during the toughest struggle of my life, and the things they said to me. I do forgive them, though. But I won't forget.

Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

*sigh* Point taken. I didn't do the research. Looks like the Aussie (not Ozzy) got it wrong again. Live and learn. ;)

Congratulations, on ALL counts. I'm trying to get to the stage where the things people write on message boards don't bother me, but I lose my focus on that when people accuse me of having unnatural relations with koala's and sheep! Resorting to personal abuse is just no decent or reasonable way to conduct a logical debate IMO.

Cheers

Re: Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

After all these years, Warren, why do you still expect a logical debate? Take a step back and look at what Internet messaging has become. Go to other sites with other topics and see the behavior there. It is far more atrocious than anything I've seen on an Internet forum for umpires. That includes Gary McGriff's board, which I'm sorry for Gary has become a zoo.

When given a relatively anonymous platform with no accountability, it is sadly common for people to become quite negative. It's as though some folks feel just fine saying anything that comes into their brains on the 'net, no matter who it might hurt, or what senses of decorum it violates.

Some people are just blowing off steam, getting things off their chest, or escaping from real life dilemmas. Others are compensating for deeper problems rooted in a poor self image, or sheer frustration over feelings of inadequacy or failure. A very few are truly mentally disabled.

So, now I take the Internet with a grain of salt. It is the same feeling I have after a particularly ugly ejection. I don't get upset about it anymore. It doesn't bother me anymore. I just sit back and look at the situation and laugh to myself over the absurdity of grown men getting all red in the face and stomping and swearing over an event in a baseball game. I picture those same men getting just as upset while playing Chutes and Ladders or Candyland, which are games, too.

That's how I look at the 'net now. Ozzy implying I am mentally unstable on a message board is pretty pathetic, and therefore funny.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Jul 23rd, 2003 at 09:59 PM]

Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Why? Because I still have some small measure of faith in my fellow officials. That may appear naive, but I know most of those who have worked with me over the years wouldn't hesitate to go to the wall for me - and I for them.

It never ceases to amaze me that, in an avocation where the members are frequently and repeatedly abused on a personal level for simply doing their job, some members still don't think twice about turning that around on someone else who's been in their exact same position. I guess that's more of a statement on what human nature has become - always look after No.1, even at the expense of stepping on and over a fellow human being much less a fellow official.

Cheers

Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Warren, and Jim for that too...These boards hammer on folks...I used too (kinda) BUT...In my own personal experience, I have great arguements with NAMED posters and pissin contests with UNNAMED posters. That one E-mail group we all had a few years back, now that got a bit rough, but it was not public.

Through these boards, I got a brand new mask from Tee, with simple" It's on its way, simply send me a check", JP got his gear ripped, I had happened to just have gotten new legguards, sent him my old , postage paid..... AFTER my personal probs over the last 2 years, human nature has gone to hell....BUT not for all.mine included.GLAD to hear you be ok JP....I got some worrys this past weekend with wife, you bet I cancelled games and pissed off an assignor...OP surgury turned into tumor and a kidney stone....biopsy soon....baseball is nuttin.......

Re: Re: Warren is misinformed (maybe not)
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

It never ceases to amaze me that, in an avocation where the members are frequently and repeatedly abused on a personal level for simply doing their job, some members still don't think twice about turning that around on someone else who's been in their exact same position. I guess that's more of a statement on what human nature has become - always look after No.1, even at the expense of stepping on and over a fellow human being much less a fellow official.

Cheers </QUOTE>

I think you hit the nail square Warren.

I've always tried to think positive for a fellow official simply because I can remember those days when I was going through the learning curve etc.

I needed some help in those days and fellow officials were glad to help.

I enjoy the boards simply because I am still able to be challenged and thus can further my education about this great game at my own pace.

I think human nature though as it has become worse and we see it in our coaches and in the stands each night, it cannot help but also trickle down into the umpiring ranks.

As you often say *sigh*

Thanks
David

[Edited by David B on Jul 24th, 2003 at 10:32 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

What makes you think he could bait me? I haven't had a flame or a bad word to say about anybody in two years. I haven't been in any pissing contests, no arguments, no disagreements, I just pop in every now and again to speak my mind and I'm done.

Jim;

Your above statement was such an outrageous mistatement of the truth that I felt compelled to set the record straight. I found numerous examples of flames and insults from your writings but the one quoted below will suffice. It is from the thread the I started that went over 100 replies which we were just discussing. Here is a direct quote from your post in response to Garth. It was from August of 2002, which on my calendar is less that 1 year ago; not even close to 2 years ago as you claimed.

Quote:

"Nanny-nanny boo-boo. You're a liar too. You lied and said you had all that history and tradition and rule on your side and you didn't. You lied. Liar, liar, liar. See how much fun it can be when the children can't get past name-calling? Talking about being disappointed, Garth, your inability to be civil, respectful, or even adult disappoints me. The Garth I used to know has been replaced with an eight-year-old. Take your Tonka toys and go home. My mommy won't let me play at your house anymore. She's says you're a bad influence."

Now Jim, are you going to tell us that you were trying to compliment Garth and the above is not an insult.

Furthermore, you make numerous posts that drip with sarcasm and imply others or stupid or lying, just as with the post that started this go-round. But, oh no, in your twisted mind, this is not insulting. I made a post that lightheartedly quoted Garth as saying that I had the longest thread. Garth said that his evidence was only anecdotal and not final. He even predicted that some cretin would come along and make a big issue of finding the longest post. That turned out to be a true statement. For along came an escaped maniac from the asylum to prove him wrong.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I don't see any difference in the "new" Jim.

Oh, and by the way, I know that you ahave extensively deleted your posts from the past. I am sure that you will do another edit, so that the evidence is erased.

Finally, this post was not meant to be complimentary but I have never claimed or have even tried to be nice. Unlike some people with a mental history, I have never claimed to be Jesus Christ or one of his apostles. Someone else dubbed me "His High Holiness", but that's another story.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Jul 25th, 2003 at 09:20 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Yeah, a quote in direct response to Garth flaming me and calling me a liar. I don't see my post as flaming anyone, or calling anyone names. It is obviously mimicking the unprovoked attack that Garth made on me. I stuck to the topic of the thread until Garth made it personal, and then I tried to defuse the situation by pointing out Garth's obvious lack of maturity and elementary school conduct.

You're right that it probably wasn't the best choice. I should've just ignored Garth's unprovoked and off-topic attack on me. I should've just forgiven his rude name-calling and lack of decorum. Garth was a friend at one time, so I guess that past relationship led me to make a poor choice and respond as I did. I've learned - Garth ain't a friend. It won't happen again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

The sarcasm I cannot deny. But if you read something where I imply people are stupid or lying, then the trouble is in your translator. For example, in my post where I pointed out that neither Garth nor you were the creators of the longest thread on this forum, I wasn't at all implying you guys were lying. I don't even believe you were lying. I, in fact, believe the two of you to be so self-absorbed that you neither knew nor cared that someone else entirely was responsible for the honor.

Now, I might not be running around flaming or name-calling or using these message boards to blow off steam. However, that doesn't mean I like you or Garth, and it doesn't mean I'm Mr. Nice Guy. I still think you're one of the biggest jerks I've ever met on the Internet, and Garth one of the biggest hypocrites. I just don't get upset about it anymore.

Thank-you Jim
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

Now, I might not be running around flaming or name-calling or using these message boards to blow off steam. However, that doesn't mean I like you or Garth, and it doesn't mean I'm Mr. Nice Guy. I still think you're one of the biggest jerks I've ever met on the Internet, ... I just don't get upset about it anymore.

Jim;

I agree that I am one the biggest jerks on the internet. I have always liked being number one.

Furthermore, this is a great lead-in to an 11 part series which I am about to upload for publishing to the subscription part to this site. It discusses how and why an umpire should be an a$$hole on the field.

Thanks for providing the opportunity for this promo for my article.

Peter

Re: Thank-you Jim
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Quote:

Furthermore, this is a great lead-in to an 11 part series which I am about to upload for publishing to the subscription part to this site. It discusses how and why an umpire should be an a$$hole on the field.

dumbest thing i have ever read. please upload that so no one reads it and you feel like an *******...like you apparently are on the field.

Re: Warren was misinformed - enough is enough!
 

I have no wish to prolong this "discussion", which is why I didn't challenge the "facts" when you first posted your now deleted "correction" over who had the longest thread. I don't want to appear to be taking sides on the matter either. The problem is, Jim, that you have misinterpreted the "facts".<ol><li>Peter Osborne (aka HHH) didn't claim to have the longest thread, only that a thread he initiated went to 7 pages and 100 posts. That post challenged my off-handed comment about "a record 5th page". He said that at that time <i>Garth</i> claimed THAT was a record, but he didn't claim that "honor" for himself. In fact he pointed out that he had only posted once in that thread, after the initiating post.<p><li>Garth didn't claim to have the longest thread either! He said he "believed" that "honor" belonged to Peter. He clarified that his belief was only anecdotal and not based in fact. He clearly didn't want to end up in a silly argument about who had the longest thread.</ol>So neither of those posters actually claimed they had the longest thread, or knew for a fact who did. That was YOUR construction on the original posts. Your now deleted post may have had a humorous aspect to it, but my recollection is that it was also liberally laced with "needling" and sarcastic remarks aimed at Peter and Garth.

Now I don't know Peter Osborne at all well, much less understand his motivation for writing particular things on discussion boards like this, but I certainly don't believe he is the sort to publicly lay claim to feats that can easily be disproved. He's not that silly. On the contrary, he's usually much cleverer than many give him credit for.

I DO feel that I know Garth Benham a fair bit better. You and I, Carl Childress and Garth, all shared a good relationship at one time. I know that Garth spoke up in private against sanctioning you on the UmpiresTalk e-mail listserv that we co-moderated, when your illness was at its peak and people who didn't understand what you were going through were demanding your ejection from the community. From what I know of Garth he is NOT an unusually self-absorbed person. Neither is he hypocritical, in my experience.

You have a history with Peter (Ozzy) Osborne, Garth and Blaine Gallant. You have admitted that. I believe your history has colored your view here. Please let us have an end to the public airing of old, private dirty laundry. With very few exceptions, the posts have been positive and constructive since I returned. I for one would prefer things continued in that vein.

Ah, Warren, you're brilliant. You haven't changed. Out of one side of your mouth, you say you don't want to prolong the discussion or take sides. You then use 1000 words prolonging the discussion and taking sides. How ridiculous.

I didn't delete my post. The admin of this site did. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him, or take it up with the person who complained. However, needling people over something so inocuous as creator of the longest thread, versus questioning someone's mental stability, aren't even in the same league. You vehemently defend one side, but remain silent about the other. Anyone who thinks I deserve to have my mental stability questioned considering what I've been through in my life, versus needling a couple of former adversaries about who holds title to creator of the longest thread, are sadly misguided in life. You seem outraged about one, but not the other. I'd call you a fair weather friend, and I'd probably be right.

You talk about how much better this forum has become. Well, maybe it's better for you because the comments are no longer directed Down Under. However, the tone of this board hasn't changed one iota. Newcomers are treated quite poorly by some regulars here. They are called names and ridiculed. I know because I've personally complained about some of those posts, and the admin removed them. Garth continues to hold his grudge against me, and has continued to make references to me being a "liar" and how he'll never read another post of mine (a lie, actually, because he does read them and complain about them to the admin of this site.)

So, I see how you are Warren. As long as the comments aren't directed at you, the tone of this board has improved. Who cares about the newcomers to this board, or to some of the others who haven't been around for years, or even me? You're happy as long as it isn't about you. If you claim that you didn't notice, then you're blind to it.

Now, I'm not going away. I plan to take on a more active role on this forum. You better learn to deal with me, or go away again. I frankly don't care what you do.

I didn't say YOU deleted the post; only that it was now deleted.

On the contrary, the record clearly shows that I sprang immediately to the offensive and requested Peter to stop baiting you with cracks about your mental stability. Look it up!

No-one has said you "deserved" such a personal criticism. I have been your friend in both "fair" and "foul" weather. Ask Carl Childress how many times I begged that your behaviour be excused on account of your illness. I have NOT taken sides, but even if I <i>had</i> then on balance it would be YOUR side that I have taken!

I suggest you enter the real world here, Jim. Simply ease your way through the top 5 or 6 threads and count the number of koala's! Even you cannot fail to note the extent of the personal criticism directed toward me by certain posters. You have let your emotions color your judgement about me, too.

I will not prolong your argument with Garth any further. I will not fall prey to the "he started it - no he didn't" mentality. I simply requested an end to the resurrection of an old feud that most of us could care less about.

I have already established that I <i>DID</i> take the risk and request Peter NOT to bait you with cracks about your mental stability. For crying out loud, Jim, you even replied saying you wouldn't LET yourself be baited in such a way any longer. So WHAT, may I ask, is this "unbalanced" response all about?

I'm sorry that you cannot accept a gentle correction of the facts and a request not to prolong the "agony" of a public resurrection of old bickering and personal criticism. READ MY POST AGAIN and maybe you will see that is all it really was! Both you and Garth have been my "friends" for quite some time. I will NOT be made to choose sides. If you intend to continue in the same vein, be prepared to have the BFair "Sleeping Koala" Award renamed in your honor.

Cheers

You know, it's how you read me. I participate on so many message boards. Our largest newspaper has a message forum for discussion of some very heated topics, and I am a regular there. I participate in e-mail groups about everything from birds to outdoor activities to hiking. I take part in communities making modifications to video games, and our discussion can get a bit strained on the off-topic boards.

But nowhere else in my browsing life have I ever been called mentally imbalanced after making a post. I'm not swearing at you, I'm not using caps, I didn't even use a single exclamation point, and still you see something in my post that leads to all yelling, or anger, or insanity. It's your problem, not mine. If you see something unbalanced in my posts, get your translator fixed. Nowhere else in life do I get those kinds of reactions from anyone. I can only conclude that it has something to do with the general nature of baseball umpires. I've met some real losers who umpire amateur baseball. I suppose they're on the 'net, too. Losers who feel they have take shots at others to make their pathetic, miserable little lives have some meaning. People who step on others to make themselves look good. Step away, I'm a doormat.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Jul 26th, 2003 at 12:33 AM]

Jim:

If there is something I have posted publicly that you would care to share with me and the rest I would like to see it.

Somehow you have brought my name into a discussion and accused me of kicking you when you were down. Being someone in the medical profession, I can assure you I would never make light of any medical issue -real or percived.

If I hated you so much, why would I continue to invite you into my football pool.

BTW, if anyone is interested in a great NFL pool, e-mail me. Its only $20 USD, or $28 for us Canucks! Send me an e-mail at [email protected] . The NFL season starts soon!

Oh, really? Let's see:<ol><li>You accused me of saying that you deleted your own post. I didn't.<p><li>You accused me of vehemently defending Peter and Garth. I didn't. I stated the facts without bias.<p><li>You accused me of remaining silent over the accusation that you were mentally imbalanced. I didn't. I was the first to demand that such accusations not be made.<p><li>You accused me of being outraged by the inaccuracies of your post. I wasn't. I just wanted the record set straight. Period.<p><li>You accused me of not being outraged by the accusations over your mental instability. You were wrong, else why would I risk Peter Osborne's wrath by demanding that he stop baiting you?<p><li>You accused me of being a fair weather friend. You have no idea how good a friend I have been.<p><li>You claimed I didn't have to face the negative comments that you faced. You probably don't bother reading BFair's posts, because you'd be way wrong there too.<p><li>You accused me of being totally self-absorbed. You're wrong again. If I were that self-interested I wouldn't have posted the request that Peter stop baiting you, and I wouldn't have posted my recent correction of your inaccurate summary of the longest post discussion between Peter and Garth. None of that debate directly involved me at all.<p><li>Now you accuse me of misreading your posts? On that count you are now 0 for 9 - and that's just about as bad a record as there has ever been in any single thread.</ol>I'm tired of making allowances for you, Jim. I've been doing it for years and it has just worn way too thin. You say your cancer is in remission. That being the case there really is no excuse for your behaviour. You treat others every bit as badly as you lament that you have been treated, and yet you refuse to see that as anything but the other fellow's fault.

Congratulations on winning the Order of the SOK, 2nd class.

http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/bits/images/koalani_f.gif

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 26th, 2003 at 06:36 AM]

give it up, you all lose. its the internet.

No, please don't stop now! I'm going for the record for the longest thread. Who would have thought it? A simple question about when and how to go for help from your partner has lead to charges of lying, mis-stating the truth, lying, misreading what was intended by the writer, lying, accusations of beastiality, lying ,charges of having no faith in your fellow man, (and did I mention?)...lying.

You guys are awesome!

Disclaimer
 

This is only added at PatF request to the length of the thread.

I know something was stated about the number of replies, but the # of views is quite large also.

lets see as of this post its 1876.

Thanks
David

Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Last time I checked, forgiving also means forgetting as well. Since you readily admit you won't forget, I'm also assuming you are reloading your flamethrower.

No I didn't. I didn't make any mention of you at all. I merely stated, in the same fashion you state your "facts," that I didn't delete my own post. I also told you who you could complain to if you didn't like it.

I accused you of saying that you didn't want to prolong the thread and take sides, and then you prolonged the thread and took sides. You still are doing that, by the way. And your, "facts without bias," is entirely your opinion. You certainly didn't e-mail me personally to keep this off the boards, now did you? No, that would've been the act of a friend.

Is that another one of your unbiased facts? The truth is, your only concern was that I not be baited, so as not to make this board an unpleasant experience for you. Poor you. You didn't say anything about what was said or defend me at all. Your only concern was that you were back on the boards and you didn't want a flame thread to occur. I'm supposed to be thankful for that? Don't make me puke. Then to turn around and try to make it seem like you were defending me? Pah-leez. With friends like you, who needs Osborne?

Please, stop making allowances for me. I don't treat people badly. I've never called anyone mentally unbalanced, and I've never made comments about what Aussies do with sheep. Now that's treating people badly. There's truth in the things I say, so it sometimes upsets people. Too bad.

There are many friends I have on the Internet umpiring boards with whom I have never had a problem. They tend not to be strong-headed and opinionated, because those are the people I knock heads with. Always have. Now, I'm a big boy. I don't have a problem. How about you fight your own battles for now on, and leave me alone?

[Edited by Jim Porter on Jul 26th, 2003 at 05:11 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Then you better check again. The dictionary you used had a defect.