During the course of the 2019 MLB regular season, there was an increase in poor behavior that required policing, thus drawing the ire of the public and the media.  But the ire was not drawn because of the behavior, but rather the psychological projection onto those visibly doing the policing.

The most obvious example is the New York Yankees, whose culture of class that was so prominent in the days of Jeter and Rivera cannot be matched by Judge and Gregorius.  The "leaders" on the team, notably manager Aaron Boone and elder statesmen CC Sabathia and Brett Gardner, have led the team into being examples for kids that promote behavior that continues to divide our society and grow hatred rather than understanding.  The umpires, who are the on-field police (as opposed to the league office, which is practically invisible), become the target of hatred spewed from the uneducated and primitively toxic men playing the game, and yet the umpires are gagged by the league to refrain from responding to such personal attacks.

The media perpetuates this due to their platform, mixed with their lack of research done on the subject of officiating.  Not since the great Vin Scully has a broadcaster actually given the officials their due respect and silently demanded that those who listen to his voice do the same.  And outside of our friends at Close Call Sports, rarely (if ever) has a journalist with prominence stepped up to the plate with the defense of the integrity of the officials.

What those who bash the umpires fail to realize is that the psychology of their words and actions speak volumes about their egos, characters, and personalities.

As Gil Imber from Close Call Sports has said in an eloquently written article (and quoted on his various audio/video posts), criticism of sports officials in a position of authority, especially in such settings with vehemence, is actually a projection of the dissatisfaction with oneself onto an innocent victim.  To say, "I'm dissatisfied with this umpire," is really translated to mean, "I'm dissatisfied with myself."

Let's make a quick clarification, though.  The above translation does not mean, "I disagree with this umpire."  We are allowed to share a different opinion, especially if the call was incorrect.  A pitch that is two tenths of an inch off the outside corner of the plate is, by rule, not a strike, regardless if it's "too close to take."  But respectful disagreement can be communicated without the behavior of a petulant child.

Back to the psychological projection, though:  we must also remember that the denial we may have in accepting this fact is par for the course.  People are afraid to lower their defenses and be vulnerable, especially when it comes to the almost certain inner examination of one's shortcomings.  If we can avoid feeling something bad, why would we put ourselves in a position to feel less than desirable emotions?

The first step to closing this division is empathy.  Somebody has to extend the olive branch, and perhaps that someone is you.  Can you feel empathy for the players who feel wronged, even if you don't agree with their reaction?  Can you feel empathy for the umpires who are not out to be unfair towards a certain player or team?  Can you feel empathy for the media members who are lost when it comes to discussing the topic?

The second step is to begin to stop identifying with your point of view or opinion on the subject.  To identify with it means to be unable to separate who you are from that particular thought.  When dissent occurs and it differs from our opinion, we take that other opinion personally and believe that others are out to attack us.  This is what happens all too quickly on the field:  players and coaches immediately believe that umpires are attacking them with their judgments and interpretations, as opposed to simply doing their job.  When a player stops thinking that he has been "wronged" or personally offended by what he perceives to be a bad call, that player will stop projecting such dissatisfaction with oneself onto the entity he thinks slighted him.

The third step?  Love.  Sportsmanship.  Practice what you preach.

Let me preface this entire post by saying this is all me.  I don't intend to offend anyone with this post, but I know how sensitive some of these topics can be.  As such, I would ask that anyone who has a problem with these thoughts solely look to me, not this organization.

Also, let me state that I am merely suggesting similarities with these arguments in order to make a point.  I don't want to suggest that the current battles negate any previous battles, nor do I want to diminish the gravitas of our history and the pain felt by so many to this day.  These discussions are meant to spark conversation, never to be divisive.

While surveying the landscape of the ridiculous hatred of MLB umpire Angel Hernandez, I noticed a trend that I probably should have noticed much earlier.  Fans of opposing teams shared a bond in a mutual hatred of Hernandez.  In essence, two fan bases that would normally rip each other to shreds have found a common ground of people to hate rather than each other:  umpires.

It's not quite "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Maybe it's closer to the two major political parties finding common ground in agreeing on patriotism.  Perhaps the better image is of two rival fans arguing with each other at the bar while watching their teams square off against one another, only to find the one place they can agree is on their hatred of the umpires calling the game.

The idea of finding common ground (or at least reducing tension) between rivals is, in theory, positive.  But the method used of finding a new entity to hate together becomes faulty when said entity is innocent.  It would be one thing if political parties came together to hate terrorists, which has occurred in history.  Terrorists, by definition, are not people that are normally positive.  (Even if they are claiming the title of "freedom fighter," the nature of the entire scenario is a bit more conflicted based on the violence.)

Officials, on the other hand, are not the same negative entity.  However, based on the nature of how fan bases can agree upon such hatred, we reach the unfortunate and incorrect conclusion that officials should be the target of such disdain.  This faulty logic is the type of material that leads us, as a group of people (or even a society) down the wrong path in judging a group of people improperly.

As a result, we can simplify this equation.  People hate officials simply because they are officials.  It is compounded by inaccurate interpretations of data rather than fully understanding rules and mechanics.  Thus, it has nothing to do with actual performance nor the content of the character of each person.  The official is hated because he/she wears the stripes/uniform.

If you've successfully completed a high school social studies course about the 20th century, you may have encountered this template before:  people are being judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.  Substitute "skin" with "uniform" and you'll have an accurate description of this situation.

The systematic hatred of officials (simply because they're officials) is a new type of racism.  There, I said it.

Please note this has nothing to do with whether an official is of a particular race/gender/ethnicity/disability/religion/sexual orientation, etc.  It is simply because the person puts on the uniform of an official and goes to work as an official that the hatred is directed at him/her.

Without going through the entire dissertation on the nature of the civil rights movement, I think it's a very basic, safe, and general summary to simply say that African Americans were disliked because they had a different skin color.  People ignorantly perceived and inferred things that led to feeling slighted by the African American community.

Again, it's not an exact "copy and paste" job, but the same is happening with officials because there is an ignorance on the part of the fans.  Rather than taking the time to understand the calls made by the officials based on rules and mechanics, fans just assume the officials are not only wrong, but the sworn enemy.

This ideology is perpetuated by the impressionable behavior of fans everywhere not understanding the consequences of their actions.  That behavior breeds the ignorance.  It is a vicious cycle that continues to create and grow an unnecessary hatred towards a group of people that have done nothing to deserve the hatred.

Now, perhaps you might suggest that a bad call by the official is what causes this to occur.  Not only does MLB data show that their umpires are right more than 97% of the time when calling balls and strikes (which is higher than the 91% of the correct calls made by the computerized strike zone), but the laziness on the part of the fan to understand how and why a call is made is not excused when the officials are right more than 97% of the time.  So, the majority of the "bad calls" are actually correct calls improperly judged by an uneducated fan.

But let's go deeper.  Let's say that the bad call is actually incorrect and falls into that margin that is less than 3%.  There are two psychological elements that are forgotten when fans are in the heat of association with a team.  First, fans will forget that the officials are not actively trying to get the calls wrong.  If that is ever not the case, then the situation is usually a case similar to a bribery or other legal issue, not the content of the character of the official in a vacuum.  Second, fans will associate with their teams so deeply that they will assume that a bad call is a personal attack against each fan, rather than just an incorrectly adjudicated decision that only affects a game and not the realities of life and death.

Put simply, the hatred for officials has grown in the same ignorant manner as general racism, and it is perpetuated in a silent way where the overwhelming majority of people do not have the ability (or the knowledge) to stand up for the officials.

How do we solve this?  Well, if we still have problems with racism in the 21st century, it stands to reason that the problem of racism against officials will also not be eliminated anytime soon.  But we can hope to curb it in the small ways that we can.

Individually, it is incumbent upon all people to look inside their own heart and ask if their view on officials is appropriate.  Further, the question must be asked if each person's behavior towards officials mirrors that view in a proper way.

But it also comes down to similar things that we must do to combat all racism.  For example, we know that certain words/names are very racist in nature.  The same holds true for officials.  Terms such as "ump show" are actually very offensive because they contain the negative connotation that demeans officials who are trying to do the best job they can.

​If we are serious about eliminating the unfair treatment of minorities, officials should be considered here as well.  They are the minority compared to the participants, coaches, and fans, and they are treated the worst.  It's not about being overly sensitive.  It's about eliminating hate.

We recently talked about asking parents to chill out when it comes to their behavior at sporting events.  Let's pull the lens back and look at it a bit more.

Ed Clendaniel penned an op-ed for the Bay Area News Group during the Stanley Cup Playoffs this year about his new goal of not yelling at officials.  He cited a few specific incidents and statistics that help support his new goal, noting a call in four different sporting events over four days that went against the home team in each game.

But the best part is where he started asking the questions we at OSIP have been asking for some time:  does yelling at officials actually provide you (or your team) with an advantage?  And the answer is a resounding no.

An interview with Jim Thompson, founder of the Positive Coaching Alliance, sums it up nicely.  The culture starts with the coaches and has to be set that way (specifically at the younger, more impressionable levels).  Thompson points out a very important note:  he guarantees there is going to be a bad call during the game that affects his team, but if the goal is to honor the game, then the responsibility of all participants (players, coaches, fans, etc.) is to be absolutely quiet and let the head coach handle it in a way that respects the game.

Thompson's Positive Coaching Alliance took it even further in a separate article.  An interview with former minor league ballplayer Jake Wald shows Wald, after joining PCA, promoting the notion that the relationship players have with officials as absolutely critical.  Respectful questions that take an interest in how officials work and show an understanding for the hard work they do is not just acceptable, but welcome!

Speaking as an official and ballplayer myself, I couldn't agree more.  Talk to me.  Work with me.

The National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) is the group that oversees high school athletics in the United States.  One of its biggest issues is the shortage of officials that is plaguing the nation.

Thankfully, NFHS Executive Director Karissa Niehoff sent a blunt message back in January in an editorial titled "Dear Mom and Dad, Cool it."

The numbers are stark.  According to the National Association of Sports Officials (NASO), more than 75% of all high school officials quit due to adult behavior, and 80% of new officials step away after only two years of officiating.

The NFHS has recognized that these sportsmanship issues are growing because the poor behavior is not being controlled.  Verbal and physical abuse is on the rise, so the NFHS hopes to be very direct with their approach.

The question that arises, though, is one of culture.  Is it simply our culture that breeds this type of behavior?  And if so, why?  Are people, specifically coaches and parents, so blind to the fact that losing these officials will ultimately undermine the entire operation to the point of eventually not having high school sports?

One thought offered by Niehoff deals with the administrators taking an active role in this effort.  Athletic Directors may need to divorce themselves from their association with their school and fandom and look to provide a good experience for all, regardless of affiliation.  That means providing extra care for officials, policing fans, and speaking out against media berating.  After all, many state associations overseeing high school athletics prohibit administrators from criticizing officials; do those need penalties need to be amplified?

All in all, the story is summed up properly in this quote from Mark Uyl in the article:  find "one other endeavor in American society where we accept and tolerate one adult treating another adult the way that we allow spectators and coaches to treat an official."

Let me know when you find one that doesn't require a police escort.

A recent Q&A about cycling discussed the issue of "purposefully stalling," which is a specific tactic used to force other riders to slow down and prevent them from advancing.  In short, it's not illegal by the letter of the law, but it goes against every bit of common sense and the spirit of the sport.  Think of it in the same boat as not "calling off the dogs" when the score of a baseball game gets out of hand.

It appeared that the best answer to the question of how to handle it is to simply look inside oneself and ask if it's something you might do.  It's not really very easy to stop (no pun intended) others from doing.  Perhaps it is more about hoping that karma simply catches up with those who think this behavior is acceptable to win.  Sometimes, we have look deep inside ourselves and know that we play the game the right way.  We have to rely on our inner peace and not our competitive juices to control us.  When we do that, the truth usually shines.

Of course, if you can, sometimes the best revenge is to just keep your mouth shut and get the victory yourself...legally and with class.

We hear it all the time, whether it is in the media, from fans, or even coaches and parents yelling it at officials:  one controversial call, and that official blew the game for a team.

News flash:  that's false.

It's easy to pinpoint one call in a game that is the turning point and can decide the outcome of a contest.  But when we do that, we are no longer admiring the proverbial forest for the trees.  We delineate an entire competition down to one moment, which makes for fantastic drama, but seldom represents reality.  (In fact, maybe Hollywood could learn another lesson on how to not poison us moving forward...)

Anytime there is a close call in the later stages of a game, an official has to make a split second decision, which will usually please half of the people present and upset the other half.  It's not a situation that is enviable by most, including the official.  After all, it's not like the official could have avoided trouble if he or she had made the opposite call:  the roles would just be reversed with the upset half now happy and the happy half now upset.

But what happens when replays show us a blown call that can't be changed?  Or what happens when a coach or parent (or even player) sees it one way and the official sees it differently?  The common conclusion is that the official was clearly wrong and is the sole culprit for the outcome of the contest.  However, the truth is the exact opposite.

During the course of any sporting event, a multitude of action will occur that can alter the balance of power defined as who is "winning."  Baseball changes with each pitch.  Football changes with each play from scrimmage.  Tennis changes with each serve.  The list goes on.  Seldom does anyone realize that every single one of these actions can affect the course of a game an equal or greater amount than the call of one official at a moment that is slightly highlighted.  In short, every time a coach tells me the one call I made cost his team the game, I remind myself that the team had ample opportunities to prevent me from even having to make that call.  Although I take responsibility for the call, I'm not the reason that team lost.

Further, there's an even greater notion at stake that people fail to recall in these situations:  great teams overcome bad calls.

The teams that win are the ones that don't stop to argue about the bad calls.  The teams that win are the ones that shrug them off and overcome them to the point where the bad call didn't matter.

When a marathon runner trips during the marathon, does he or she stop to examine the spot where he or she fell?  Does the runner complain to anyone and everyone about how it is the fault of the ground for causing the runner to lose time?  No!  The runner gets up and hurries along to make up for the lost time!

The same goes for great teams and great athletes.

Have you ever stopped to think about whether professional athletes are actually friends?

On one hand, as we have always stated, it would behoove athletes in the same sport to recognize that they are all on the same team when it comes to being in the same union.  There is no reason to fight with members of other teams within the same sport for that reason alone, let alone that it is just plain wrong.  After all, they all want the same thing:  a fair wage to play a game for a living.

But on the other hand, think about how players on the same team have to compete with not only the players in the other dugout or on the other sideline, but on their own team as well.  If a player isn't performing well, he will usually be replaced by another player.  It becomes a competition within the same team to make sure that playing time is earned so as to avoid the "business" of sports where a slumping athlete will be benched for someone who might produce.

A similar comparison might be two actors who are both auditioning for the same part.  Or even just two professionals both trying to get the same job.  Colleagues under the same heading (and perhaps in the same union) must now fight for work just to be on the proverbial playing field where the actual work might happen!

The common response to this is that "it's a business."  The business is to produce the best possible product so that the bottom line continues to grow.  Success is defined by the income brought in, not the quality of the work.

It's not something that is changed easily (or even needs to necessarily be changed).  But it does deserve a second thought when it comes to trying to empathize with others.  Perhaps some of the lessons learned in this conundrum can be extrapolated into our lives.

As we return to the book "No Contest" by Alfie Kohn, an interesting thesis is presented.  We discuss competition as it relates to sports.  We've even examined it at the workplace.  But what happens when it comes home?

A quote from Walter Weisskopf cited by Kohn notes that competitors eventually sprout in the forms of "sex partners, siblings, neighbors, and peers of his group."  It's no wonder that a slang term for bedding a lover is "scoring!"

But think back to elementary days when emotions and attractions were not what drove someone towards a partner, but rather the competition to call him or her "yours" and parade him or her around like an object to be shown off.

Think of even more complex questions that could develop later into relationships as adulthood presses on.  Perhaps partners wonder who has the bigger paycheck, the most friends, or the sharper wit, to quote Kohn.

What happens when a child is born?  Could there be a competition as to which parent will be preferred by the child?  Could multiple children signal a competition for who is Mommy's or Daddy's favorite?  Do parents begin to compete with other parents as they socialize, wondering whose infant walked or talked first?  Does it continue as it is compared as to whose teenager got into the better college?

As you can see from these suppositions, anxiety is probably knocking at the door!

The point here, though, is that a conscious awareness that we have the potential to bring this type of setting home with us may just diffuse it and prevent it from even happening.  We are practicing good sportsmanship when we realize that none of these things should be a competition!  There is no ultimate prize in winning any of these games!  A perceived status or quick and short-lived gratification do not feed the ultimate desires of being human.

Instead of feeding this beast, work to celebrate each individual accomplishment for what it is:  individual.  It's not a game when it comes to this stuff.

During Week 4 of the 2018 NFL season, Seattle Seahawks safety Earl Thomas suffered a broken leg on the play that ended his season.  As he was being carted off the field, he gave the middle finger...to his own bench.

Read that again.

Why would a player do that?

Simple:  money.

You see, Thomas was holding out for a better contract prior to the start of the season and didn't get it.  Therefore, when his season was cut short due to this injury, he no longer had any leverage in trying to earn additional money.  Further, who knows if his career has taken a hit based on the nature of the injury?  Some teams may not want to shell out money for his contract knowing he suffered such an injury.

The "hold out" for better contracts in the NFL is an interesting topic because it doesn't happen in certain other sports for a variety of reasons.  In fact, it doesn't happen much else in life.  If you sign a contract, you are obligated to fulfill your responsibilities assigned with that contract unless the other party or parties breach or violate the contract.  Just ask any judge.

But in the NFL, there are some factors that make you begin to understand why players might hold out.

First, take a look at the career length of football players.  It's very short.  The physical nature of the sport does not bode well for people to wish to last long in the league.  You're more likely to end your career due to an injury than to choose when it's time to retire.

Now, here's the big one.  Unlike other sports, the money owed to NFL players is not guaranteed unless it specifically says so in the contract.  So if you are cut from a team, the money stops.  That's not how it works in a sport such as Major League Baseball:  if a team releases you, they are obligated to pay you the remainder of the contract (with the possibility of a slight reduction in cost if another team signs you).

Therefore, NFL players hold out for better contracts in order to help guarantee that they will be financially secure if something happens to them physically and cannot work.  Think of it as a form of insurance.

None of this excuses Thomas.  His gesture, although understood, was probably not the best idea.  And perhaps he should have taken the smart route and continued to hold out.  But it focuses a light on something else:  the system that governs the payroll structure of football players contains a flaw based on the ability to hold out, and it has consequences on multiple sides.

Imagine if your NFL team went from being a playoff contender to a hopeless pretender because your best player decides he wants more money.  Would you immediately blame him?

The point here is that there is no clear cut answer.  There are no heroes.  This is more about debunking certain myths and asking people to take a step back and consider the bigger picture, which is one of the staples at understanding sportsmanship.

Have you ever had a bad day?  Have you ever had a bad day at work (or, if you're young, at school)?

If the answer is anything other than a resounding "yes," stop reading now because you do not exist.

Now, you may go to an office for your job.  If you don't go to an office, you probably go to some "place" to do a job.  (Even someone self-employed has to go somewhere, even in the house, to do their job.)  Do you know where people involved with sports go when they go to the office?

It may be described in a number of ways:  the field, the stadium, the park, etc.  It all means the same thing.  But if you're a professional athlete or official, your office is literally the playing field.

So if a star athlete has a poor performance, is it not fair to say he or she had a bad day at the office?  Does that give others the right to boo that athlete and make sure he or she knows that fans disapprove of their performance?

Let's put it another way:  if you're having a bad day at the office, how would you feel if people who didn't work at your office came into your office and just verbally abused you over the job you were doing?

If the answer is anything other than a resounding "bad," stop reading now because you do not exist.

The next time you're not happy with a player or an official at any level in any capacity, keep one thing in mind:  that person is trying very hard to do their best.  Your negative critique isn't helping and serves no purpose.