More background check incidents....

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

Any hair left?

Did you know that coaches are not allowed to touch the ball between innings?

What if it itches?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Background checks are a waste of time and money, provide a false sense of security and catch only those that have already been caught, but even that is not a guarantee. I will never agree to one.

There is absolutely ZERO advantage to performing BI on umpires as an umpire should NEVER be alone with a player. And no check is going to stop anyone who wants to be.

I would guess some putz may come up with, "but if it prevents one....". GMAFB. Where are the parents, coaches and other team adults?

You can do all the checks you want, it will provide no additional protection to the player.

BTW, the above goes for the coaches also and that gets proven about three to four times a year in my area. Willing to bet it is the same everywhere.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Background checks are a waste of time and money, provide a false sense of security and catch only those that have already been caught . .

I very much agree with Irish with everything he said. Except when the time comes, I will begrudgingly submit to a BC; heck, my employment is contingent on undergoing child abuse training (because 3 or 4 people were asleep at the wheel - the article mentions what I'm referring to).

An unfortunate by-product for ASA or other softball organizations demanding these for umpires is those umpires who only work adult slow pitch. Why would they need to submit to BC's?

I mean, if we wanted to determine someone character a priori, wouldn't we ask them how much umpiring money they reported on their taxes?
(Tis the season, many happy returns)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I would guess some putz may come up with, "but if it prevents one....". GMAFB.

Label me a putz then. I do believe that an adult who is listed on a sex offender website would be deterred from getting involved in a youth activity where the leadership of that activity checks those databases.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Label me a putz then. I do believe that an adult who is listed on a sex offender website would be deterred from getting involved in a youth activity where the leadership of that activity checks those databases.

Yeah. If that were true, those who get exposed by a BI would never place themselves in the position to be exposed. Yet, we routinely hear how they constantly aren't exposed whether subjected to a BI or not.

Besides, SO web sites are in conflict with the constitution that those in this country hold high, yet continue to ignore and alter to satisfy their own power-hungry agenda

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I very much agree with Irish with everything he said. Except when the time comes, I will begrudgingly submit to a BC; heck, my employment is contingent on undergoing child abuse training (because 3 or 4 people were asleep at the wheel - the article mentions what I'm referring to).

An unfortunate by-product for ASA or other softball organizations demanding these for umpires is those umpires who only work adult slow pitch. Why would they need to submit to BC's?

I mean, if we wanted to determine someone character a priori, wouldn't we ask them how much umpiring money they reported on their taxes?
(Tis the season, many happy returns)

At this point in time, each ASA local association has the option to require background checks on their umpires or not. In my association, if an umpire indicates to us that s/he only works adult slowpitch, we do not require a background check.

However, I have recently learned that any umpire that is assigned to work this year at Hall of Fame Stadium in OKC at any level is required to undergo a background check. This is a directive from the National Office.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yeah. If that were true, those who get exposed by a BI would never place themselves in the position to be exposed.

That ALONE is the sole positive from running BC's.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That ALONE is the sole positive from running BC's.

^^^^ winner winner winner^^^^^

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That ALONE is the sole positive from running BC's.

Try reading the entire post. People ARE getting the BI in spite of their previous conviction and still ending up on the field.

BIs are as ineffective as polygraphs. And I'm in the business which requires security way beyond the bonding. I've also had multiple police agencies so far up my business, it is unbelievable. But they all prove zip. I've seen people pass a security check valued at over $2K and end up arrested for dealing drugs, bank robbery, embezzlement and even murder.

Like I said, it is a chicken little, feel good reaction fueled by ignorance. The provide nothing.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Try reading the entire post. People ARE getting the BI in spite of their previous conviction and still ending up on the field.

How often does that really happen? And if it does, shame on those who allow it. They aren't doing their due diligence to check the results of those BIs.

As I mentioned before, the sex offender in the OP story is listed in NSOPW. He joins the local USSSA umpire association. The secretary or assignor or member-at-large of that association could have easily taken the names of the association members and done a quick search with NSOPW. This criminal's name pops up. The association's president contacts him and tells him his services are no longer desired. How hard is that?

The system would work if the people responsible would make it work. Now, obviously miscreants who haven't been caught yet will slip through. And I cannot vouch for how well services like First Advantage or USSearch discover sex offender info on people. But if the info is already out there and all it takes is a little digging, then responsible people should do it, and do it correctly.

[bsnalex]

Background checks are worthless as nothing will show up on a police report until the person is caught. The best you can do without spending the exorbitant costs of several hundred background checks is check the names against S.O.R's.

If there was a way to do some sort of proactive psychoanalytical work on a candidate before they start work, but that's just silly.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

If there was a way to do some sort of proactive psychoanalytical work on a candidate before they start work, but that's just silly.

From one of ours: "Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker

By definition, aren't we all crazy for officiating?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

From one of ours: ...-- Bob Uecker ...

One of our what?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

How often does that really happen? And if it does, shame on those who allow it. They aren't doing their due diligence to check the results of those BIs.

As I mentioned before, the sex offender in the OP story is listed in NSOPW. He joins the local USSSA umpire association. The secretary or assignor or member-at-large of that association could have easily taken the names of the association members and done a quick search with NSOPW. This criminal's name pops up. The association's president contacts him and tells him his services are no longer desired. How hard is that?

The system would work if the people responsible would make it work. Now, obviously miscreants who haven't been caught yet will slip through. And I cannot vouch for how well services like First Advantage or USSearch discover sex offender info on people. But if the info is already out there and all it takes is a little digging, then responsible people should do it, and do it correctly.

It is SOCIALISM at its finest. There are thousands of people on variable sex offender lists that have no good reason for being on there other than they did something against the law that because of the moronic "zero tolerance" mantra the Socialists demand they are inappropriately registered. This guys was not even a felony. I'm not even sure if there was jail time, haven't had that much time to dedicate to this.

You can live in your fantasyland, I'll live in the real world. Hell, a class a misdemeanor issue would probably really bring down the real estate market in the DC area

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

Background checks are worthless as nothing will show up on a police report until the person is caught.

WOW. Now that's insightful. I hear that it is also worthless to read a newspaper before it is printed. I guess I should stop reading the newspaper. I also have difficultly watching tv shows before they air. Perhaps I should return my tv.