[tomegun]

Dan, I don't even know anyone that has posted in this thread except Chuck and Brianp. Far too much trust is put into a persons ability to type, read (the rules) and comprehend the meaning of the rules. That does not make someone good in practice. Don't let this whole internet official thing get your drawers in a bind; this isn't about what someone does, rather about a veteran official's philosophy. For my money philosophy is one thing that can be worked away from the court as well as on the court. Who practices something and doesn't try to get it right? IMO, you are doing that by constantly giving reasons for looking all over the court. Things happen, but we should (IMO) try to be mechanically perfect, and the results will be better than if we accept sub-standard practices.

Would you go telling your kids all the wrong things that you did and continue to do? I wouldn't because they will eventually want to try it out a little since "dad" does it.

This is what I'm saying, all this talk about getting it right is giving people a license to ball watch. What is easier to watch the ball or be desciplined enough to watch your primary? I think it is harder to watch the primary but there is someone, somewhere that might look up to you and emulate the things you do and say. They will eventually watch the ball too or should I say they will take a peek? Don't get offended if you think your way is mechanically sound. IMO, it isn't. It doesn't matter if we disagree because the man upstairs has blessed us with geography; you work wherever you are and I work where I am. If our paths cross at a higher level, you can bet your last dollar that I will get there with a mechanically sound philosophy. I am NOT saying that there are never times when you should do something "outside the box." However, far too much time is spent on the reasons why something wrong (mechanically) is done and not enough time on what could have been done to prevent it. For me, that is progress and lessons learned.