If Carl wants to let Rollie write terrible advise, then that is one thing. But he should not let him butcher rules.

Here is a quote from Wiedernanders latest article:

Where should I start?

One base? What does the BR have to do with obstruction on a different runner?

Carl, you obviously read the article, as later you put in a editors note saying that the OBR has type A obstruction which results in a dead ball. How can you let him publish this stuff?

That's pretty awful. Perhaps Rollie is confusing the obstruction rule with the NCAA balk rule. Nah, it's just pretty awful.

Maybe if he calls that in a game,his partner
will stroll out and ask: "is there anything you
want to ask me Rollie? Anything at all,just ask..."

Luke,

For someone that has this great and obvious disdaine for Rollies writing's, why are you reading them to begin with. And if your going to read the article, read the WHOLE article before you comment.

I am not supporting or critiqueing his works however, in all fairness he does explain what he meant by the statement above. You may want to, (and I know its going to kill you) finish reading the article.

Just trying to get the call right here.

The topic, though not well defined I'll admit, seems to be catcher's obstruction, in which case Rollie is righjt.

I don't think so. Here is a quote of the whole paragraph:

1. Rollie references an article named "The Streak." That article is annonyingly hard to read with its references to dead, delayed dead, pre dead, unborn, fetus, live, pre born, child, living child, delayed live, still live, and born. (Yes somehow all of those things are supposed to have something to do with obstruction.) Well that whole article is about obstruction. Rollie syas that he would like to add something to that article, an article about obstruction.

2. Why did he use the term "obstruction" instead of "catcher's obstruction", "catcher's interference", or "catcher's obstruction/interference."

3. If he was talking about catcher's obstruction, why did he say that NF and NCAA are like on the issue, but leave out the OBR? It is delayed dead with the same penalty and NF and NCAA.

4. He was correct in saying all obstruction in NF and NCAA play is delayed dead. He then messed up the penalty.

And I did read the whole article.

Read the WHOLE segment.

<i>If no runners are on base, catcher's interference/obstruction (in different rules, different terms are used...why?...</i>

I did read the whole thing.

The title of that section of the article (The part in large bold letters) is "Obstruction"

At the end of that 5 paragraph section, there is an editor's note which says: "Editor's note: In the OBR there's something called Obstruction, Type (a). When the defense is playing on the runner or the batter-runner interferes before touching first, then the correct call is: "Time, time!""

Why would there be an editor's note about obstruction in a section about catcher's interference/obstruction?

Hmmmm,
 

Writing for an international webpage is difficult.

Those of us that do it are as much a "professional writer" as we are a "professional umpire."

That makes writing for this medium difficult.

I try to write interesting pieces. I do not have the time to write as often as Roland nor do I have as many ideas as does he.

I write about personal anecdotal happenings.

I am sure that some of them miss the mark and are considered "horrible" (that should be said using your very best Bill Walton impression) even by people that like my work.

Editing a "real time" webpage must also be difficult.

LDUB, as writers for this site we are required to handle a lot of our own editing. There is simply no way that one person can handle editing each article. The editor is not dealing with many Tex Maules's, Kerry Kirpatrick's and Dan Jenkins's -- we are not THAT good.

I am sure that on the football board (simply used as an example) there have been comments about articles that have listed rulings that might not have been 100% correct.

Those pages would be even more hard to edit as the editor might not know football rules as well as baseball rules.

First, I am happy to be back writing about baseball. I am even more happy writing about umpiring baseball.

As a group we can be satisfied reading Mano's monthly magazine (which also has errors) or we can join here. That is difficult as NEITHER of the mediums use professional writers.

Second, I simply can't compete with Roland in the NUMBER of articles he produces. I work for a living. I have a "real job"(tm).

So we have two ways to handle the issue:

1) We have Roland writing and releasing for publication six articles a month or,

2) The gaps get filled in with "coaches" writing articles that are telling umpires how to do thier job. Those articles drive me crazy . . . the bottom line issue is if we are going to have more current articles by umpires we need more umpire writers.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it.

I currently have about six articles in the "On Deck" section that are coming on their way to the site.

I can only produce about two columns a month.

So, in closing, Roland has a style of writing. He also has a large number of articles. While I do not agree with each sentence of each article he writes at least he has the balls to put stuff out there for us to read.

LDUB, I never try to write a column on interpretations because there are too many umpires that know far more than me . . . I am not asking you to cut anyone any slack . . . I am simply asking you to recognize what a difficult thing it is to write things down and let every one take a shot.