Threads about articles on the paid site

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LDUB

Think about it, how many of your suscribers are not internet umpires? Internet umpires are a very small percentage of all umpires. But I would guess that internet umpires make up a high percentage of Officiating.com suscribers.
[/B]

Your guess would be wrong. A miniscule percentage of our subscribers post to The Forum or eTeamz, the only Boards we track.

Let me repeat: We have thousands of subscribers. We have about 100 internet posters at The Forum. You do the math.

And as someone pointed out, Roland is opinionated, humorous, gregarious, eclectic, entertaining - as well as educational. His work has been widely praised by the people who count, namely our subscribers.

BTW: Are you turning down my offer to write an article explaining what we need to do to improve?

One more time: Think about it. There are as many recommendations for amateurs as there are clinicians.

Is it heel/toe? PBUC
Is it Gerry Davis? Papa C
Is it the box? American League
Is it the balanced stance? Wendlestedt
Is it the heel/toe, heel/toe? Evans
Is it the scissors? Ed Vargo, National League supervisor
Is it the knee? Doug Harvey

We've published articles advocating every stance EXCEPT the scissors.

If the voice of Officiating.com ever said: "Thou shalt do thus and so," or "Thou shalt never...," likely you'd be the one of the first to complain that we were trying to dictate mechanics. And who the hell are we to do that?

Know'm sayin'?

Finally: It's well known that when we publish controversial opinions, we offer rebuttal space to anyone willing to stand up and be counted BY NAME, not handle. I believe Tee pointed that out in an earlier thread.

It is never wrong to examine ideas. Those that are good, pass the test. Those that are not, fail.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
His work has been widely praised by the people who count, namely our subscribers.

BTW: Are you turning down my offer to write an article explaining what we need to do to improve?

I was unaware that Roland was widely praised. I know of a small group of posters who have not had anything good to say about his articles. I assumed that these views were widespread.

I'm goning to have to turn it down. I'm not the writing type. If I were, I would have sent you an email a while back, asking if you were looking for writers. If you really want someone to write this type of article, Garth is the man.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LDUB

I was unaware that Roland was widely praised. I know of a small group of posters who have not had anything good to say about his articles. I assumed that these views were widespread.

I'm goning to have to turn it down. I'm not the writing type. If I were, I would have sent you an email a while back, asking if you were looking for writers. If you really want someone to write this type of article, Garth is the man.

You've heard me say this before: The people who trash Officiating.com are not subscribers though, as I said in this thread, they are happy to bite the hand that feeds their freedom of speech.

Remember what your teachers said in social studies, civics, government: Those who don't vote shouldn't criticize elected officials.

Mr. Benham has repeatedly turned down offers, both public and private, to bury the hatchet and write for us again.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Your guess would be wrong. A miniscule percentage of our subscribers post to The Forum or eTeamz, the only Boards we track.

The right number to compare with subscribers, though, is non-posting readers of the Forum. It's a harder number to track than posters, but you can track monthly unique users. I suspect that it's considerably more than the number of posters.

In my own case, I read the forums for many months before subscribing, and only then did I post anything. I wouldn't be surprised if most subscriberes are acquired through the Forum, and that many "lurk" there for some time before subscribing.

I'll agree with Carl on this point. The structure of the article archive usually makes it clear when articles are controversial, especially when the editor can arrange a point-counterpoint in articles. (Carl sometimes does a better job within an article to warn the naive user.)

-LL

[chuckfan1]

Id have to think that the majority of subscribers are not in the Roland W fan club. Im sure there are some out there, who look forward to his musings, but Id have to think that is a distinct minority.
Yes, when he first appeared, I checked out what he had to say, but after a couple weeks I stopped even seeing what his articles were about.
Why? They rarely, if at all, offered any real world advice on officiating, whether for the rookie official or the veteran.
Mostly, articles filled with his attempt to take the story, and elevate it to another level by offering analogies, or Shakesperean verbage, or vocabulary taken straight from Jeopardy.
What did it for me was the article having to do with "unborn preborn, yet born, over born, past born,"or whatever it was. I kept going on through the article looking for the connection. It never came. No play, no situation. Nothing. It just ended.
Cant believe he got paid for that, or even more, we pay for it.
I think its a case of needing articles to keep the baseball section consistently publishing. And he is the one submitting.
And Carl, if someone disagrees, the answer it not always for them to write their own article. Some dont want to write, some dont like to write. Some just want to subscribe.
And yes Im sure there are those out there who look forward to Roland's articles. There is always one the next day.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

We're not talking war or peace, life or death here. We're talking about how to cover a baseball diamond and work as a team.

Papa C IMO the aforementioned says it all. Baseball is a GAME and as we have found out there is NO ONE accepted way of umpiring.

We have had huge debates over such things as:

Uncaught 3rd strike less than 2 outs and B1 starts to run.
Do we say Nothing or do we
Signal the out sign and say batter is out.

Then there was the infamous balk call that ended the game.

We could go on and on meaning there is NO accepted way of doing things.

As with most publications, it boils down to which writing style or author one likes best.

There are those that read anything Hemmingway has ever written and there are those that wouldn't read the cliff note version.

As for me Not to suck up but I enjoy your articles as well as those of Jon Bible.

Why!

I think both you and Jon give ALL views (including your own) on a certian subject matter and allow the reader to decide for him/herself.

In addition I also learn from some of the articles especially Jon's article on calling balls/strikes in which he stated that he treated the strike zone as a "window" which made his job as PU easier.

Perhaps you can alure Jon from referee where IMO would make a great addition to the staff.

In addition, it's much easier to take advice from an author who has umpired at every level from HS all the way to the BIGS.

In Summary as with any publication there are those articles which one will have no use for but there are many which one will. Also, the writing style and author also alure subscribers as well.

Pete Booth

[David B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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." ....

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

Nothing wrong with allowing the writers to write what they want; however, as you stated above, the article by Roland was completely a "bad" move by an umpiring crew.

I read Blaine's article, and thanks goodness someone had time to write a rebuttal. And Blaine did a very good job.

The papers and magazines that I choose to read are full of articles that I don't read, or I don't agree with; however, in the context of being a site that is supposed to help officials, there needs to be and often times there is a view from the "other side."

Without, I could see a young umpire who might just take the "bad" advice and actually apply it to their game and end up in big trouble.

Thanks
David

[jicecone]

Generally, I have found Roland Wiederaender's articles somewhat overflowered, with too many sidebars. However, I would have never known this unless I read them. By the same token, I would have never known that I dislike grits as much as I do, without trying them.

I do not subscribe to his proposed method of "getting it right" in the games I officiate however, he clearly indicated his intentions for it's use, "The games in which this can be done are mostly summer, kid-ball games although it might be workable in early season JV games."

Now I know that the methods, mechanics and rule interpretations discussed on this forum, generally are according to "Hoyle." Rightfully so. But, as each and everyone of us have experienced out on the field one time or another, "Hoyle" does'nt always play in all the games we do. In fact, "****happens" seems to pop his ugly head,
more times then we would like, I'm sure. And for those of you out there that can honestly say "I have never done anything like that," well, you have'nt officiated much.
I am sure we have all resorted to things not perscribed by "Hoyle."

I don't believe Carl got this much attention when he proposed semi-permanent parking in the "B" position.

Tradition, is sometimes just a hard thing to break for some. We have already discussed this to nauseaum, under "getting it right." And when were out on that field, the method we use, that gets us through that particular game and is agreeable to all, may not be according to "Hoyle" but, if it works, its the best method used for that game, that place and that time.

I'm still trying to break the barrier of wearing long pants during those "Hot, Dog Days of Summer." !!!???

Just my opinion.

[Roland Wiederaenders]

My thanks to Carl for offering to present a "defense" vs an opinion/suggestion that not even he agrees with...dissent is good for America and should be tolerated with honor.

Now for a brief response to Carl and all who disagree with my humble suggestion of how to handle a newbie umpire who screws the pooch on a pulled foot at first base, who is not using the best of "foot" "ball" mechanics.

1. Always have an attitude of helping out those who are less experienced than you....off field is good, on field can be helpful if tolerable/situational.

2. Don't let your social conservative knee jerk responsive attitude get in your way of seeing that suggestions are just that....something to think about, not reject immediately as patently wrong [and join the Muslim Mujahadeen attitude].

3. Get a life! If the opportunity to help a fellow ummpire presents itself, don't hang him out to dry. Too many "Carls" and "gurus" and "hard *** teachers" will perform an on field crucifixiion of their partner and say after the game to themselves, "too bad, poor sap, he deserved what he got for being such a dumb ***"......

4. Compassion conquers the consequences of a bad call which can be made right.

5. Please remember, I don't really care what anyone, including Carl, thinks about my suggestions/oppinions, because I don't need to do this **** to make a living or to make a competent and consistently good reputation as an umpire. I can quit and not feel the least bit hurt by anyone's difference of oppinion with mine. I live by my own rules, not by someone who thinks they's like to teach me new ones.

Thanks for listening....thanks for the $ for the article...play ball

Roland, who doesn't like to write on the Forum anyways

[LMan]

RE: paragraph #2....a difference of opinion makes someone an Islamic terrorist?



you need to lay off the Starbucks, pronto.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Roland Wiederaenders
5. Please remember, I don't really care what anyone, including Carl, thinks about my suggestions/oppinions, because I don't need to do this **** to make a living or to make a competent and consistently good reputation as an umpire. I can quit and not feel the least bit hurt by anyone's difference of oppinion with mine. I live by my own rules, not by someone who thinks they's like to teach me new ones.

So you don't care that every article you write is straight crap? Since everyone hates your writings, why would you not try to change your writing style, in the hope of your articles becoming better?

Your writings make you look incompetent.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Roland Wiederaenders


1. Always have an attitude of helping out those who are less experienced than you....off field is good, on field can be helpful if tolerable/situational.

2. Don't let your social conservative knee jerk responsive attitude get in your way of seeing that suggestions are just that....something to think about, not reject immediately as patently wrong [and join the Muslim Mujahadeen attitude].

3. Get a life! If the opportunity to help a fellow ummpire presents itself, don't hang him out to dry. Too many "Carls" and "gurus" and "hard *** teachers" will perform an on field crucifixiion of their partner and say after the game to themselves, "too bad, poor sap, he deserved what he got for being such a dumb ***"......

4. Compassion conquers the consequences of a bad call which can be made right.

Noble concepts- in any sport.

Completely idiotic application recommended by you- in any sport.

Worst advice possible- in any sport.

Hey, you are getting paid though, as you said. You've got one thing going for you anyway. One.

[DG]

I am a paid member. I pay for the articles because I can order books or post to the forum for free. So the more articles, the better.

Roland is sometimes funny and sometimes full of you know what. So are some of the other article writers, just not as often as Roland. I can normally distinguish between good advice and bullsh*t.

I don't care about future readers who read the archives and don't know any better.

I once wrote a semi-rebuttal to an article. It has been my only article to date. Anyone can do likewise. Since Roland's articles get published I imagine any rebuttal would also.

This ain't Newsweek, it's closer to Mad Magazine.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by DG
I am a paid member. I pay for the articles because I can order books or post to the forum for free. So the more articles, the better.

You can order books and post to the forum for free, without being a paid subscriber.

[DG]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

You can order books and post to the forum for free, without being a paid subscriber.

I "can order books and post to the forum for free". Sounds familiar, it's almost the same as "can order books or post to the forum for free".

[Edited by DG on Jul 11th, 2005 at 11:14 PM]