[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I'm pleased that articles published by Officiating.com have become the subjects of threads here at The Forum.

Roland, Peter, Tee, Rich, and - of course - I have had our opinions subjected to scrutiny.

And everyone who "writes" at this forum also has their opinions subjected to scrutiny. Perhaps by a larger audience.

That's the purpose of "publish or perish" at University. Let's say I teach a course in Joyce at the graduate school. I fill the little darlings with MY ideas about Joyce. But to gain promotion I must be willing to share those opinions with my peers; that is, with others who are experts in the Irish novelist.

Several people have taken exception to the work of Roland Wiederaenders. Fine. But if your ideas are better, put them into an article - as he does twice a week - and send them for consideration.

Talk is cheap.

So is writing for officiating.com, according to several of your writers.

My opinion: Roland was as wrong as anyone could be when he suggested that the UIC should interfere with his partner's call at first. Several said he should wait until asked. I say the UIC has no business messing with that call ever, under any circumstance. You all know what I think about "get it right at all costs."

But Officiating.com does not censor work by its writers. We believe our readers are intelligent enough to choose what they will use in their own games.

But seriously, Carl....(and I do mean, seriously)

You have on many occasions attempted to promote officiating.com as a serious officiating internet magazine. You constantly compare it most favorably to "Referee Magazine". I prefer to compare it to Time, or Newsweek.

If a writer submitted an article filled with information and suggestions so obviously incorrect as this to any of those magazines, no editor would have allowed it to be published. This is not a freedom of thought issue. This is not a freedom of the press issue. This is not a censorship issue. This is a quality issue. Officiating.com is a business as are the other magazines. But at times it does not seem to be concerned with its image as a quality business. This is one of them.

This is also an issue of what is appropriate. No professional magazine I know would allow one of its writers to advocate an action totally inappropriate to the activity involved. Would "Sky Diving Today" run an article suggesting anything but appropriate action guaranteed to keep their readers out of harm's way? Would Newsweek, (where a good friend writes) allow someone to submit an article as insensitive to the correct practice of Islam as this article is to the good practice of umpiring? They would hand the article back to whatever junior writer was dumb enough to submit it and say something to the effect of "bring me something worth publishing."

Editors are not merely proof readers anymore. They should be concerned with the quality and accuracy of their publications and the articles that appear within them; and just for the sake of the reputation of their publications, but also for sake of the other and better writers whose names become connected to their publications.

Blaine Gallant's piece appears on Monday. He rips Roland. But Blaine ain't a wannabe, having called several national tournaments in Canada.

Looking forward to it.

[/B]

(by the way, how does this time stamping work. I edited my this about 2 minutes after posting it, not three hours.)

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 9th, 2005 at 01:12 PM]