THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
By Jack FurlongFounder/President/CEO Recently, I was having a conversation with an umpire colleague on the subject of “chirping,” defined as the snarky complaints that come from players, coaches, parents, and fans when they don’t agree with a call made by an umpire. For example, if an umpire calls a pitch a strike that might be borderline outside, the batter may react by looking back at the umpire and saying something akin to, “Come on, that’s off the plate.”
The body language and reaction from the player might cue the coach to mimic him. “Let’s go, Blue! Tighten that zone up!” Additional boos and similar comments may then follow from the crowd. It’s a silly game of mimicry that attempts to send a message of displeasure while also bonding a team and its fanbase. My colleague was making the point that he expects chirping, not just on close calls like the scenario mentioned, but also when he knows he makes a bad call. This left me puzzled. “You expect to be berated when you know you make a bad call?” He answered in the affirmative. This led me into a wild thought process. (As a side note, I should note that I make a conscious choice to try to keep topics such as religion and politics away from the arena of our organization’s mission unless it’s necessary. In this instance, I determined that there could be validity in making a connection that warrants this introduction.) When I was in seminary, there was a discussion held at one point about topics surrounding atonement theology and the concepts of sin, repentance, guilt, and shame. Essentially, the question being posed asked why it was accepted and expected that people were supposed to dwell on their mistakes and sinful nature, begging for absolution from the repetitive nature and infinite cycle of sin. By contrast, we asked why people would not instead try to focus on love and the corresponding happiness and joy. Granted, this was never an endorsement to abandon introspection and responsibility for mistakes and errors; rather, it was a shift in focus and mindset. The entire experience was a very enlightening conversation that sparked something of a revolution in my thinking of religion and spirituality, mainly because I was taught that the doctrine of sin was paramount to our understanding of humanity. After a prolonged dialogue over time within our liturgical team, we all began to naturally seek to uplift ourselves and each other (not to mention our congregation) instead of reminding everyone of their fallen nature. We found ourselves believing that the joy and love we could emanate might be the panacea for this perpetual depression; tangible instances of what was defined as sin could be reduced thanks to happiness. Could that same revolution happen in our thinking regarding chirping? When I give clinics on sportsmanship to players, coaches, parents, and fans, one of the questions I ask is, “When an umpire makes an incorrect call, who is the first person to know it was an incorrect call?” A period of silence usually follows until I reveal the answer: The umpire who made the incorrect call! Every umpire worth his/her salt knows in this situation that the call he/she made is not correct. Inside the mind of that umpire, a showdown is already beginning where the umpire is berating himself/herself for not making the correct call. When the expectation is that each umpire begins perfectly and then improves, there will always be a natural internal dialogue where the umpire is already upset when he/she cannot live up to the perfect standard. Thus, what is the point of the chirping that comes from the others who disagree with the call? Is it a human outlet of stress and frustration? Is it the demand for restitution when one feels wronged? Or could it be an attempt to reinforce the penalty that an umpire must receive for not being perfect, like receiving penance for sin? Whatever the reason, one thing is for sure: it doesn’t help the umpire. Personally, when I know that I had to make a difficult call, or when I realize I made an incorrect call, the last thing I want to hear is anything coming from the dugout or the stands regarding the opinion of others. It’s certainly not going to change the call (unless it was a misapplication of the rules that can easily be fixed). Any judgement on ball vs. strike, fair vs. foul, and safe vs. out that I make simply cannot be changed unless something absurd happens (like if I accidentally get blocked out from properly seeing a tag call and another umpire on the field saw something such as the fielder dropping the ball while making the tag). In fact, I remind those in my clinics of something very important: chirping over a call can make things worse because the umpire may divert attention from the next call due to the obsession and overthinking of the previous call. It creates a snowball effect that perpetuates missed calls. Granted, the solution may not be to always be positive. It doesn’t seem fitting that a coach who just suffered an incorrect call would have the ability to shout, “That’s okay, Blue! We understand, and we’ll support you and help you. Let’s be positive and try to focus on the next call!” However, maybe the compromise is just silence. Maybe the solution is for those who were wronged to bite their tongue and trust that the umpire is going to try to get better. In short, maybe the thinking of humans needs a little revolution. Maybe a deviation from putting people down and harping on displeasure can be replaced with something positive, or at least neutral.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2025
Categories
All
|