What's Wrong with TWPs...

[Manny A]

...and why the caustic "eteamsleeze" comments in the earlier TWP thread? I've been a long-standing member of eteamz, and I certainly don't recall ever seeing an attack of this forum over there.

I agree that some TWPs can be so far-fetched as to border on the ridiculous. But many of the situations and approved rulings you find in J/R, JEA, PBUC, etc., come pretty close to being plays you will probably never see in your umpiring careers. I've been umpiring LL Baseball for eight years now, and I've never seen a kid throw his glove at a batted ball, run the bases in reverse, lead off by going into the outfield, or stand on a fence to make a catch. And yet these and other situations are covered in written professional interpretations meant to educate umpires.

If you don't like to respond to TWPs, fine. But to state that they serve no useful purpose is, IMHO, a bit harsh. And to accuse those who partake in answering them as egotistical "I know the rules better than you" narcissists is insulting. What's wrong with a few "what ifs" to take one's mind off of wars, natural disasters, crime, and other real world events? Asking those kinds of questions here and other venues is akin to BS'ing over a few beers at Hooters after a day of tournament games. Is there any harm in that?

Hell, if Jose Canseco hadn't headed a ball over the fence, or Randy Johnson hadn't obliterated a dove with a pitch, those would be situations that meet the definition of TWPs in my mind.

Sorry if I offended anyone. Thank you for your time. I guess I'll just go back over to that other sleaze board and leave you serious umpires alone.

Manny Aponte

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by Manny A
...and why the caustic "eteamsleeze" comments in the earlier TWP thread? I've been a long-standing member of eteamz, and I certainly don't recall ever seeing an attack of this forum over there.

I agree that some TWPs can be so far-fetched as to border on the ridiculous. But many of the situations and approved rulings you find in J/R, JEA, PBUC, etc., come pretty close to being plays you will probably never see in your umpiring careers. I've been umpiring LL Baseball for eight years now, and I've never seen a kid throw his glove at a batted ball, run the bases in reverse, lead off by going into the outfield, or stand on a fence to make a catch. And yet these and other situations are covered in written professional interpretations meant to educate umpires.

If you don't like to respond to TWPs, fine. But to state that they serve no useful purpose is, IMHO, a bit harsh. And to accuse those who partake in answering them as egotistical "I know the rules better than you" narcissists is insulting. What's wrong with a few "what ifs" to take one's mind off of wars, natural disasters, crime, and other real world events? Asking those kinds of questions here and other venues is akin to BS'ing over a few beers at Hooters after a day of tournament games. Is there any harm in that?

Hell, if Jose Canseco hadn't headed a ball over the fence, or Randy Johnson hadn't obliterated a dove with a pitch, those would be situations that meet the definition of TWPs in my mind.

Sorry if I offended anyone. Thank you for your time. I guess I'll just go back over to that other sleaze board and leave you serious umpires alone.

Manny Aponte

Bye

[kylejt]

I've got to side toward Manny on this one.

TWP's in umpiring are like super ice in physics, or infinity in math. Not realistic, but very useful in proving points. You have to use extreme examples to make a case, and streching the limits of the rules is no different. If no one ever "what if'ed?" the rules we'd have very little to talk/argue/discuss/flame/rant about. And that's kinda what most of us are here for.

The pomposity of a few gasbags on this board sometimes overshadows the valuable information it imparts by the majority.

To quote Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up Francis"

[Edited by kylejt on Jan 18th, 2005 at 01:49 AM]

[ozzy6900]

I am not against TWP's but they cause problems that drive many people crazy. The TWP's themselves are not bad, it's the constant "okay, I see your point, but what if....". Simply put, most TWP posts never end.

Furthermore, you get people who feel as though their opinion is the only correct one. These individuals then run the entire post flashing their "rules knowledge" and discount everything else. An example would be: R1, 1 out. F1 in contact with the rubber allows the ball to slip out of his hand. The ball rolls off the mound toward the plate. It never crosses the foul line. There are those who insist that this is a pitch. Could it roll all the way to the plate to be offered at by the batter? I guess it's possible but in 45 years of baseball, I've never seen it or heard of it happening! But again, there are those who insist that this is a pitch.

TWP's are alright, but someone has to know when to reel in the fish and stop the thread.

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
An example would be: R1, 1 out. F1 in contact with the rubber allows the ball to slip out of his hand. The ball rolls off the mound toward the plate. It never crosses the foul line. There are those who insist that this is a pitch. Could it roll all the way to the plate to be offered at by the batter? I guess it's possible but in 45 years of baseball, I've never seen it or heard of it happening! But again, there are those who insist that this is a pitch.

A ball slipping out of a pitcher's hand is not a TWP. I see this once every couple of years. Those who insist that this is a pitch when it does not cross the foul line are plain ignorant. They can insist that it's a pitch all they want. We have lots of posters here who insist on being wrong. What else is new? The rule is clear. If it crosses the foul line it's a pitch, if not, it's a balk. Like you. I've never seen it cross the foul line.

I once saw a pitcher lose control on his delivery and threw the ball straight down. The ball bounced off the front of the mound and went 20 feet in the air, sailing over the catcher's head to the backstop. The rule is clear. We had a pitch.

[Rich Ives]

The argument was about whether a batter could hit the rolling "pitch" before it crossed the line, and, if he did, was it in play.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The argument was about whether a batter could hit the rolling "pitch" before it crossed the line, and, if he did, was it in play.

I'm not even going to drag this mess over to this board. If you want to read the entire post, click on the link:
Third World Play. As always, the thread started out innocently (I think) and it just blew up into a virtual bowel movment.

Personally, I believe that is is due to one person pontificating the entire thread. I used to enjoy posting on that board and answering questions, but I find myself becoming more of a reader there than a poster. Oh well, that's the way it goes. Sorry for boring everyone with my ranting - it's slow at work today.

[mcrowder]

Count me in with the people who think discussion of oddball plays can be useful. It makes you think about the rule you are using in the situation, and why it applies.

There are those that disagree, and I understand that - but if you disagree, just don't reply. No need to blast those who feel that worthwhile discussion can result from a "TWP". There was nothing wrong with the previous post, although it was actually a pretty easy one. The berating received by the original poster was completely unnecessary.

[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

[mcrowder]

We can agree to disagree. However, ponder your sentence here: "If we stifle anyone’s right to post we have gone down to the lowest common denominator." I, actually, agree 100%.

Consider this then -

The denigration of people who post plays you consider TWP's is you doing just that --- stifling someone's right to post. In fact, it's EXACTLY that (your stifling of people's right to post and discuss TWP's) that got under my skin that day.

[Tim C]

Your point is correct.

That is why I will now comment "TWP" and watch the thread develop. It is my responsibility to support rights other than my own.

My "new and improved" position seems quite clear to me.

Tee

[Kaliix]

Tim,

I never said that you shouldn't post to a TWP thread. I never said, nor implied that it was wrong to disagree with someone else's thoughts or ideas. Don't put words in my mouth.

Your problem is that you can't take the fact that you were shown to be wrong. You stated that TWP's are a waste of time, intellect and bandwidth. Yet you and others made almost thirty posts on the topic. Which, if I'm not mistaken, wasted time, intellect and bandwidth.

You stated that by discussing TWP's we could confuse the newer umpires. Yet by posting multiple times to the thread, you and others give it status. You give it the hot topic icon on the main board and you pump up the number of responses which lends it credibility. Those things make people want to read the thread. By encouraging umpires to read the thread and get confused by the discussion, you are, by your actions, encouraging umpires to be confused. And yet you still don't seem to get that point.

Take a page out of the baseball broadcast book. I would make an analogy to the baseball broadcasters no longer showing fans who run out on the field. They used to show them running on the field, getting chase by security and being lead away. But then they realized that that was defeating the purpose, because the idiots that do that crave attention and by putting them on TV, they were giving them exactly what they wanted, attention. By showing them, they were, by their actions, actually encouraging others to run out on the field. The idiots knew that that running on the field would be an instant ticket to TV time.

By your and others continued posting to a TWP thread, your are encouraging others to read the thread and that is exactly what you don't want them to do. Your continued posting legitimizes the thread. Can't you see that?

Feel free to disagree, just don't take upwards of 25 posts to do it.

Lastly, I only called what you wrote rambling when you took 45 lines to answer a question that someone else correctly and adequately answered in two lines. Sorry, but that kind of answer just serves to add to the confusion. If that is what you mean by rambling, then so be it. Two lines would have sufficed.

[Manny A]

Originally posted by Tim C

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.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. From a parochial standpoint, I think the site provides a lot of value for those who focus on small diamond baseball. There are more than a handful of people who volunteer their free time to umpire LL and other amateur youth games, and the eteamz site was originally set up for those folks. I respect many of those who contribute to the discussion there. True, it leaves something to be desired for those who do FED, NCAA, and other "serious" organizations, but I don't think it was meant to serve all umpires at all levels.

Frankly, I find value in all of the umpire internet sites. True, a lot of the discussions are a little out to lunch, especially during the off-season. But those kinds of discussions happen everywhere, whether it's during breaks at an association meeting, in the evenings at a school/clinic, in the distant bleachers at a tournament game, or wherever umpires meet to blow off some steam. As long as the discussions can stay civilized, I see no harm in them. If novice umpires can be easily swayed by them and take away the wrong information, I suppose that could be a problem. Perhaps your "TWP" warning on the post can alert rookies to not try this at home.

As for your friend Jim, it's too bad he feels that way. Perhaps he's concerned that the proliferation of umpire websites may take away prospective students in his clinics. I, for one, feel that clinics are still very important as they provide an opportunity to gain on-field experience in positioning and mechanics. But when it comes to rules discussions, you can certainly learn a lot from the internet sites, as long as you can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I suppose I'm rambling now. Thank you for your candid response. I respect that much more than a one-word salutation.

Manny Aponte

[cowbyfan1]

I agree that some TWP's will never be seen in a million years. But as pointed out things DO happen, ie Johnson hitting the dove, Canseco headder as well as the ball rolling into a cup on the field in a Yankee/Red Sox game a couple years ago. If wacked out things like that can happen with Pro's who are supposed to know how to play the game, then what would be considered a limit in games where kids don't know how to play?

I have seen little kids run the wrong way. I have seen high school pitchers "throw" a pitch and have it cross the foul line half way between home and 3rd. I have seen a pitcher drop the ball while on the rubber. A high school coach try to change his line up after it was given to the PU. I have been calling for 4 years. So as far as I am concerned they are not that unusual.

[chuckfan1]

Tim, were all for you posting when you disagree. When I first started a few years back, I learned some things from reading this board, yours included.
The problem is you, and many others seem to have to include any/all of the following:
--Sarcastic comments
--Degrading other officials
--Disregard for other opinions
-- etc etc etc
Why cant you just answer the question in generic terms, or not contribute at all?
If you see a post where you feel you have something important to add, please do so, Im still learning, and othes are too.
But leave out all the negative crap.
And if the topic doesnt interest you, move on.
If you are a "Top Dawg" and you seem to want everyone to know, then act like it. I want to learn from guys like you. Pass on things youve learned over the years, mistakes youve made, how you learned from them, etc.
Dont need to put others down, or other sites down, or other leagues down, or other levels of ball down, just because you no longer are in those particular arenas, or your realm of exsistence.
Your wrong saying someone is trying to stifle your posting of an opposite opinion, or negative reaction. Please do so, but please stick to the play, or situation, whatever.
Were all in this together, so instead of putting everyone/everything down, try helping bringing some of us up.