Threads about articles on the paid site

[Carl Childress]

I'll regret this, no doubt. I always do when I reply to Benham, who as everyone knows, has an ax to grind with Officiating.com.

He says we should treat our writers like Newsweek or Time. Would editors at those magazines allow such "obviously wrong" information to be put forward? He mentioned a writer who might unfairly defame Islam. Would the Skydiving magazine allow dangerous instructions?

What nonsense!

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.

Benham writes as if there is but ONE WAY to run a two-man crew. He has disciples here who constantly downgrade the part of the site that pays for their freedom to trash our magazine.

Go back and read Roland's article. You'll note that nowhere is an attempt made to say this IS the way it's done, nor even this is the way it OUGHT to be done.

It's a suggestion, one of three in the article. It's intended to provoke thought, not childish diatribes.

If you're old enough, you'll remember the resistance in the baseball world when Nick Bremigan "suggested" that with runners on first and third in a three-man crew, the third-base umpire should remain in Position C. Oh, the horror of it!

Imagine how upset I was when the NCAA joined the "get it right at all costs" club.

Imagine how happy I was when the FED adopted my suggestion that the umpires ought to announce loudly that a batter-runner was out when it was illegal for him to run to first following a third strike not caught in flight.

Benham speaks of Wiederaenders' suggestions as being "obviously incorrect." Amazing! An incorrect proposal? Lah, me.

I'll bet Benham was the guy who thought a pinch hitter could be charged with batting out of order.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 9th, 2005 at 03:36 PM]