[Tim C]

Manny:

I think you have asked two fair questions that deserve a well thought-out answer.

Instead I will reply.

First, it is the opinion of some that TWPs are nothing more than a weak attempt to display knowledge that the poster may have. In the most general of terms a person reads the rule book and tries to apply activities that show the absurdities of the actual written rule.

Second, we have found over the decades that the OBR contains a finite number of rules and words to cover an infinite number of plays.

Initially Nick Bremigan and then Rick Roder are proponents of the “string theory” (i.e. drag together a number of sentences from individual rules, combine them and then make a ruling). This gives an infinite amount of verbiage to cover strange happenings.

This causes a great amount of grief in dealing with true plays and actions much yet TWPs.

A friend of mine (I’ll call him Jim for this post) trains umpires 50 weeks a year. His general feeling is that all “umpire websites” and especially the discussion groups are simply mental masturbation and add little to the art of umpiring.

That is how I view TWPs.

It is my personal opinion that umpires need to work first on balls/strikes, safes/outs and fair/foul. When they really get those down they should get into “game management” and the issues of upholding the highest standards of umpiring. An intimate knowledge of the rules should be the last 10% of training.

Your second question concerns my reference to “eTeamSleeze” and your defense of that site.

I take cheap shots at the site simply because it is a small diamond site that tries to speak of “real baseball” (games played by shaving aged players) rules and issues. It is a horribly funny site but has little value to most umpires.

There is another part of this thread that bothers me more than TWPs. There is a prevailing attitude expressed that if someone does not agree with a topic they should remain silent.

I disagree strongly with those that intone these limits.

It is becoming evident in America that it is taboo to disagree with thoughts and ideas. As example, if we are talking of diversity in schools or the work place and anyone expresses strong feelings against the politically correct rhetoric we are labelled ‘racist’ or ‘zenophobe’ and told to halt our discussion. If we are talking about ‘same gender’ significant other relationships and fail to agree with some we are labeled “homophobes.”

The exact same thing is true here.

If we stifle anyone’s right to post we have gone down to the lowest common denominator. If anyone disagrees with a position or topic they have the right, actually the responsibility, to speak out.

I’ll close for now, as Kalixx (a guy who is arrogant, pompous and condescending – and I thought I lead the league in those departments) will call this rambling.

I will make one change:

When I see a play that is, in my personal opinion, a TWP I will simply post “TWP” and y’all can fill in the rest of the story.

Soap Box put away.

Tee