The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 08:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 870
I don't need permission to take your name and run it against the sex offenders database.

I don't give a crap about your credit rating, or even if you have 50 parking tickets outstanding.

But there are numerous reported cases of umpires who have perpetrated any number of offenses from getting too close to the catcher, to adbuction, rape and murder.

I don't think we need to protect the guilty.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 10:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Tony, I don't disagree with any of your statements, but I think they are off the point. Universal background checks on game officials in any sport are (in my opinion) generically a waste of time, resources, and misguided.

The fact that any umpire ever created even one offense is true, but the risk is essentially minute. At no time is a game official in unsupervised contact with a game participant; the odds of catching a random offender are staggering, roughly similar to the odds that any two random people will meet in the universe. Clearly, other than the perception of needing to do something/anything to protect our youth, any rational person would undestand that the greater risk and more liklihood of a problem would occur when a child is left one-on-one with someone.

Obviously, many agencies are mandated background checks on head coaches; fewer mandate all assistand coaches. Practically no one checks the parents who simply help the team from time to time; and I venture to guess that absolutely NO ONE checks all the parents and assorted family members who might hang out with team, offering to help drive, taking the child "home", giving them a ride to "practice", or even slipping away from the crowd at a tournament ("I'll walk with you to the concession stand", or bathroom, or to go get your .......). All of these are clearly greater risks than the softball umpire on the softball field with 17 (or more) other ball players, 6 or more coaches, and unknown number of parents and assorted family members, all watching for an alleged misstep by the umpire.

My personal opinion is that umpires should all get background checks as a universal program AFTER there is mandated background checks of all coaches, parents, and family members of all participants. Add a couple hundred dollars fees to all participant registrations; then see how many of the general public outcry for universal background checks on the game officials. The irony is that the travel teams, who pay thousands in fees, don't care; it is the public agencies that run recreation programs, and have limited per player fees, that seem to think that they can minimize their exposure by mandating these checks on the most minimal risks.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 01:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
But there are numerous reported cases of umpires who have perpetrated any number of offenses from getting too close to the catcher, to abduction, rape and murder.

I remember one murder case (from, I think, Court TV) where the killer had umpired the girl's games. So it was indeed as an umpire that he came into first contact with the girl. However, all his actual offenses took place away from the field. The first thing out of line was that he (a man in his mid 20s) started to send gifts to the teenage girl. Still, it is not clear that a background check would have revealed anything.

I never heard of any instance of an umpire committing an offense by getting too close to the catcher, but I guess in a country of close to 300 million people, something like that is bound to happen. However, would a background check have revealed anything about this guy? And what were some of the cases of abduction/rape/murder?

(I'm so sexist. I always assume it's a guy. Although throughout history there have been many cases of "black widows" who poisoned a string of husbands for money, and of Munchhausen's syndrome babysitters who smothered the children in their care or mothers who fed their kids weed killer to get sympathy from doctors and neighbors, there has never been a true case of a compulsive sexual killer, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, who was female. Of course, women have committed other kinds of sexual offenses against minors.)

In our local high school a few years ago, a girl tried to bench press more than she could handle. The gym was full of people. When the girl realized she couldn't handle the weight, she cried out in distress. A male gym teacher ran over to her and kept the bar from crushing her neck.

The girl's parents soon sued the gym teacher and the school district. You see, as the gym teacher positioned himself to secure the weight, his crotch got close to the girl's face or brushed against it or something.

The coach was near retirement anyway, so the school gave him a buy-out package. A couple of years later, the courts found for the coach/school, and no money was awarded.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 02:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Tony, I don't disagree with any of your statements, but I think they are off the point. Universal background checks on game officials in any sport are (in my opinion) generically a waste of time, resources, and misguided.
In re-reading my post, I omitted my point. I am agreeing with the nonsense about universal background checks.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 03:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Now that we know it involved Washington and Baltimore, we can understand someone being nervous. Did JF or ML ever play softball?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 04:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
I will agree with anyone who says that actual background checks are a waste of money, and also agree that if anyone really wants to know, they can perform a background check on just about anyone.

HOWEVER...

I do believe that the mere act of ASKING an umpire/coach/administrator to sign a form that ALLOWS someone to run what they could run on their own anyway can be a deterrent to someone who truly is an offender. You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 05:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.
Given my earlier defense of Sen. McCarthy, my reply to this may surprise some. I find this reasoning justifying a specific loss of liberty to be one of the most dangerous tendancies of our modern American outlook.

Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?

Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.

I realize that softball sanctioning organizations are not "the state." I was commenting on the general justification / rationalization.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 05:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
I will agree with anyone who says that actual background checks are a waste of money, and also agree that if anyone really wants to know, they can perform a background check on just about anyone.

HOWEVER...

I do believe that the mere act of ASKING an umpire/coach/administrator to sign a form that ALLOWS someone to run what they could run on their own anyway can be a deterrent to someone who truly is an offender. You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.
Maybe, ONLY if that was the only way, and it isn't.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 05:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?

Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.
ditto, ditto, ditto ! ! !
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 23, 2007, 05:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
It's hard to believe, but the D.A. in the Duke Lacrosse Frameup case actually said, of the three defendants, "If they aren't guilty, why do they need lawyers?"

(Could be because of people like you, Mr. Nifong.)
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 24, 2007, 09:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymule
It's hard to believe, but the D.A. in the Duke Lacrosse Frameup case actually said, of the three defendants, "If they aren't guilty, why do they need lawyers?"

(Could be because of people like you, Mr. Nifong.)
I was raised in a family of military men and law enforcement officials. These men were law abiding, straight laced conservatives. So i am about 15. My brother and I get taken to the police station for having in our possesion a very,very small amount of a naturally growing weed. No pun attended. Our dad shows up with an attorney. He believed in system-the whole system-which included the rights of the accused.

He grounded us for 30 days and we got to redo the landscape for our whole extended family. He reminded us, on numerous occasions, that constitutional protections ended when he sent that mortage check in to pay for our house. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 24, 2007, 09:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
naturally growing weed

I bet you guys were planning to make dandelion wine, right? Naughty, naughty!
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 24, 2007, 09:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Given my earlier defense of Sen. McCarthy, my reply to this may surprise some. I find this reasoning justifying a specific loss of liberty to be one of the most dangerous tendancies of our modern American outlook.

Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?

Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.

I realize that softball sanctioning organizations are not "the state." I was commenting on the general justification / rationalization.
You seem to have missed some of my point, so I'll reiterate.

First - the background checks that you all seem to feel are horrible invasions of privacy can be performed easily, quickly, and WITHOUT your consent, should someone choose to do one.

So, that said, the sanctioning body asking you to fill out a form that allows them to do something they can already do is most certainly not infringing on your liberty.

And it then follows - since the mere asking of your consent for something they don't need your consent for in the first place does not infringe on your liberty at all, the side benefit of possibly chasing away a true offender is a positive that has no negative.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 24, 2007, 10:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
You seem to have missed some of my point, so I'll reiterate.
No, I didn't miss your point. I was commenting on the rationalization, which I quoted in my response. I was commenting on these two things:

1) Only people who have something to hide should refuse to disclose information or permit searches, or the corollary, that if you refuse to disclose information or permit searches you must be hiding something.

I reject that notion categorically. Maybe all I am doing is defending my liberty.

2) Loss of liberty is worth it if it protects "just one" innocent. No, it isn't, since the loss of liberty leads eventually to the repression of many innocents.

You'll note above in this thread I pointed out that much of the information needed to "invade our privacy" is publically available in commercial databases. Commercial databases are the property of the business owner, not the property of the individual the data is about. I'm talking about credit reports and the financial records and other random data that back those up.

The other common source of data you (or someone) listed has always been public data - criminal records. It is just only recently with the computerization of these data and the interstate cooperation in the wake of 9-11 that combines these data across jurisdictional boundaries that this massive amout of data could be searched cost effectively.

So, background checks are relatively easy and cheap to do due to the combination of commercial databases and the computerization of criminal databases.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the rationalization I was commenting on.
__________________
Tom

Last edited by Dakota; Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:27am.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 24, 2007, 11:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
No, I didn't miss your point. I was commenting on the rationalization, which I quoted in my response. I was commenting on these two things:

1) Only people who have something to hide should refuse to disclose information or permit searches, or the corollary, that if you refuse to disclose information or permit searches you must be hiding something.

I reject that notion categorically. Maybe all I am doing is defending my liberty.

2) Loss of liberty is worth it if it protects "just one" innocent. No, it isn't, since the loss of liberty leads eventually to the repression of many innocents.

You'll note above in this thread I pointed out that much of the information needed to "invade our privacy" is publically available in commercial databases. Commercial databases are the property of the business owner, not the property of the individual the data is about. I'm talking about credit reports and the financial records and other random data that back those up.

The other common source of data you (or someone) listed has always been public data - criminal records. It is just only recently with the computerization of these data and the interstate cooperation in the wake of 9-11 that combines these data across jurisdictional boundaries that this massive amout of data could be searched cost effectively.

So, background checks are relatively easy and cheap to do due to the combination of commercial databases and the computerization of criminal databases.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the rationalization I was commenting on.
OK. It sounded to my like your comments were a rebuttal to mine. Now it sounds like they weren't. I actually don't disagree with either of your numbered statements above. I just don't think being asked to sign a form that allows a background check is a loss of liberty, since I've already lost that bit of privacy already. If one wants to rail against the already existing "services" around which have already served to limit our liberty, I will probably be right there with them. I just don't agree that being asked to sign a form that allows a group to do something they can already do infringes on my existing rights at all.

Regarding "1) Only people who have something to hide should refuse to disclose information or permit searches, or the corollary, that if you refuse to disclose information or permit searches you must be hiding something." I never said that, and I don't agree with it. I'll assume now that you were refuting something someone else said, or that you incorrectly inferred that notion from what I did say.

Regarding "2) Loss of liberty is worth it if it protects "just one" innocent. No, it isn't, since the loss of liberty leads eventually to the repression of many innocents." Again, I agree with you. Where we obviously differ is the assumption that being asked to allow a background check is or is not a loss of liberty. In today's world, it is not. It may be a liberty or more accurately a privacy that we have already lost. We may even both agree that we should fight to get it back ... but the requirement that we allow a sanctioning body to do what they already can do is absolutely not a loss of existing liberty.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Background info on teams CLH Basketball 6 Mon Oct 02, 2006 02:57pm
background checks oatmealqueen Basketball 30 Mon May 22, 2006 01:33pm
Background checks huup ref Basketball 4 Tue Jan 17, 2006 01:14am
Little League Background Checks GarthB Baseball 10 Mon Oct 28, 2002 02:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1