"LLLLLLL"oyd Carr (officialllllll thread)

[BayBuck]

SPORTS PEOPLE; Examining Umpires

<!-- .toolsList --><!-- ADXINFO classification="button" campaign="foxsearch2006-emailtools13-nyt5"--><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 3px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3px" height=53 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=93 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=93>

​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A Philadelphia optometrist is not so sure sports fans are wrong when they scream that an umpire or referee didn't not see a decision their way.
Arthur Seiderman, writing in Omni magazine, suggests that some officials may need glasses or lenses to correct an eyesight deficiency. Seiderman reports that of 40 college, high school and amateur sports umpires and referees tested, only 29 had 20-20 vision. Twelve of the 40 had difficulty with depth perception - discerning the distance of an object - and spatial localization - judging an object's movement through space. ''All umpires and referees should have eye examinations,'' Seiderman said, ''and if they can't pass, they should be required to take steps necessary so they can.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE5DC1F39F932A35757C0A962948260

 

[Bucklion]

Well, I must be the oddball then, since when I simply shut one eye, I can still sense depth. Actually, I'd be willing to close one eye and go through any "depth perception related obstacle course" you might design.

I believe to get a driver's license in most states you only need to have 20/40 vision in one eye...one-eyed people can drive cars without restrictions, unless I am unaware of something.

 

[zincfinger]

what exactly is it he can't handle or do with this supposed lack of depth perception?

View things in three dimensions. Viewing 3-D with one eye is the same as viewing 3-D on a television screen. You can cognitively tell what is in front of or behind something else, but the actual sensation of depth is absent.

Well, I must be the oddball then, since when I simply shut one eye, I can still sense depth. Actually, I'd be willing to close one eye and go through any "depth perception related obstacle course" you might design.

No, you're not the oddball, you're simply confusing the ability to cognitively determine that one thing is behind another with the visceral ability to sense depth. If you tried a "depth perception related obstacle course" with one eye closed, you would fail. It is a physical reality that the ability of your brain to visualize depth is based on the different angles at which your two eyeballs see objects. Remember the Viewmaster? It (and every other 3-D device) is based on exactly that principle.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Zinc, I can sense a difference between stereovision and monovision, but it doesnt appear to me to be depth. (Edit - I know that having two eyes offset as we do is responsible for affording us depth... but, as you said yourself, the brain can compensate.) In any case, I don't see how having one eye limits a referee's ability to call a game...

 

[Dryden]

I applaud Lloyd in his crusade to oust one-eyed people from the work force. Shit, I'd actually become a Lloyd fan if he could get Dick Vitale and Stu Scott fired too.

 

[Steve19]

SPORTS PEOPLE; Examining Umpires

<!-- .toolsList --><!-- ADXINFO classification="button" campaign="foxsearch2006-emailtools13-nyt5"--><TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 3px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3px" height=53 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=93 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=93>

​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A Philadelphia optometrist is not so sure sports fans are wrong when they scream that an umpire or referee didn't not see a decision their way.
Arthur Seiderman, writing in Omni magazine, suggests that some officials may need glasses or lenses to correct an eyesight deficiency. Seiderman reports that of 40 college, high school and amateur sports umpires and referees tested, only 29 had 20-20 vision. Twelve of the 40 had difficulty with depth perception - discerning the distance of an object - and spatial localization - judging an object's movement through space. ''All umpires and referees should have eye examinations,'' Seiderman said, ''and if they can't pass, they should be required to take steps necessary so they can.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE5DC1F39F932A35757C0A962948260

Zinc, maybe you can develop your line of reasoning here? It sounds like two eyes don't help? I know nothing about this. What kind of calls would you have trouble making?

 

[Bucklion]

View things in three dimensions. Viewing 3-D with one eye is the same as viewing 3-D on a television screen. You can cognitively tell what is in front of or behind something else, but the actual sensation of depth is absent.
No, you're not the oddball, you're simply confusing the ability to cognitively determine that one thing is behind another with the visceral ability to sense depth. If you tried a "depth perception related obstacle course" with one eye closed, you would fail. It is a physical reality that the ability of your brain to visualize depth is based on the different angles at which your two eyeballs see objects. Remember the Viewmaster? It (and every other 3-D device) is based on exactly that principle.

Still doesn't answer what that means he can't do.

 

[zincfinger]

Zinc, I can sense a difference between stereovision and monovision, but it doesnt appear to me to be depth. (Edit - I know that having two eyes offset as we do is responsible for affording us depth... but, as you said yourself, the brain can compensate.) In any case, I don't see how having one eye limits a referee's ability to call a game...

Zinc, maybe you can develop your line of reasoning here? It sounds like two eyes don't help? I know nothing about this. What kind of calls would you have trouble making?

I don't know that one could say that a man with one eye, and thereby lacking depth perception, "can't" make any particular call. Equally so, I don't know that a man with one arm "can't" operate a jackhammer or swing a sledgehammer. But I would definitely consider a two-armed man to be more qualified to work construction, just as I would consider a two-eyed man to be more qualified to work a football game. Since his visual impairment, in my opinion, makes him less qualified, I don't believe he should hold the job in the stead of people who are more qualified.

However, in more specific answer to the question, I think one can imagine many situations, such as pass-interference, for example, where the split-second ability to accurately judge whether two players were the same distance from you, or different distances from you, would be important. A guy with one eye, when viewing a situation rapidly and from a distance, could easily mistake two players who were actually five yards apart for having been right on top of one another.

 

[Steve19]

I applaud Lloyd in his crusade to oust one-eyed people from the work force. Shit, I'd actually become a Lloyd fan if he could get Dick Vitale and Stu Scott fired too.

That's it, Luke, let it through, feel the dark side!!!

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/hillary_vader.jpg

 

[Bucklion]

I don't know that one could say that a man with one eye, and thereby lacking depth perception, "can't" make any particular call. Equally so, I don't know that a man with one arm "can't" operate a jackhammer or swing a sledgehammer. But I would definitely consider a two-armed man to be more qualified to work construction, just as I would consider a two-eyed man to be more qualified to work a football game. Since his visual impairment, in my opinion, makes him less qualified, I don't believe he should hold the job in the stead of people who are more qualified.

Again, there's no evidence he wasn't qualified...you are picked to ref the Orange Bowl based on merit. And you can't say someone should not be able to hold a job if you can't name anything they can't do but it "seems" like they somehow should be less qualified...that's discrimination, and it's not even based on any tangible evidence.

 

[zincfinger]

Again, there's no evidence he wasn't qualified...you are picked to ref the Orange Bowl based on merit. And you can't say someone should not be able to hold a job if you can't name anything they can't do but it "seems" like they somehow should be less qualified...that's discrimination, and it's not even based on any tangible evidence.

Well, if that's your response to my argument, presumably you would have the same response to a preference for hiring two-armed construction workers over one-armed construction workers. Is that so? I didn't use the word "seems", so you needn't have put it in quotes. The two-eyed man is more qualified. It doesn't mean that there is any particular call the one-eyed man can't make, the two-eyed man is simply physically better enabled to make them all more accurately.

 

[Bucklion]

Well, if that's your response to my argument, presumably you would have the same response to a preference for hiring two-armed construction workers over one-armed construction workers. Is that so? I didn't use the word "seems", so you needn't have put it in quotes. The two-eyed man is more qualified. It doesn't mean that there is any particular call the one-eyed man can't make, the two-eyed man is simply physically better enabled to make them all more accurately.

I don't see where you or LLLLoyd Carr are qualified to make that assessment. Using your example, construction work is rigorous labor...well using a related example that's easier to visualize, if a man works on a railroad with one arm and can't swing the hammer hard enough to pound in a railroad spike, or can only do half as many spikes in a given amount of time, then he is less qualified than a two-armed man. If he can pound in as many spikes as another man in a given amount of time, and that is his job, then yes, he is as qualified as a two-armed man, even if it seems like he shouldn't be...so what would be the rational behind not hiring him? That you think he should be less qualified, even if he can do the job? It's the same here with the ref...if you can see the sideline, holding, whatever the job is he is doing, with one eye as well as a man with two, if he makes the same percentage of calls accurately, then he is not less qualified just because a person like LLLLoyd Carr thinks he must be.

Anti-discrimination laws are in place for this very reason. Someone asks LLLLoyd why the guy can't do the job, and LLLLoyd says "It's obvious because he only has one eye" that isn't good enough. If there's no tangible evidence that he can't do his job as well as any other ref employed by the conference, then there are no grounds to dismiss him.

 

[BB73]

Geez, I posted this as a joke, and this thread gets hijacked into a serious discussion.

Damn, that always seems to happen! :tongue2:

 

[sandgk]

Ve Vill Haff no more one-eyed referees, only one-armed referees are allowed in der Big 10!

 

[sandgk]

Let's make all the referees eyeless!

That way the games will be called justly, for justice is blind.