Look back rule violation?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

that Referee magazine puts out.

Ugh. This hurts.

Referee Magazine is probably the most effective spreader of misinformation regarding sports officiating that there is. Worse than announcers on tv, because they do it under the guise of some apparent authority. They generally get about a 60% on their OWN quizzes.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ugh. This hurts.

Referee Magazine is probably the most effective spreader of misinformation regarding sports officiating that there is. Worse than announcers on tv, because they do it under the guise of some apparent authority. They generally get about a 60% on their OWN quizzes.

Though I have found errors in the quizzes, your "60%" is a pathetic exaggeration. I doubt you even read them.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I doubt you even read them.

He probably does not have time to waste.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

He probably does not have time to waste.

I know I don't read them because the money I would blow on a subscription could be better spent elsewhere (and yes I did read them for a while).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

I know I don't read them because the money I would blow on a subscription could be better spent elsewhere (and yes I did read them for a while).

As a stand-alone, I wouldn't buy the subscription, either. But as a part of NASO registration, it is worth it to me.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

As a stand-alone, I wouldn't buy the subscription, either. But as a part of NASO registration, it is worth it to me.

Agree

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

As a stand-alone, I wouldn't buy the subscription, either. But as a part of NASO registration, it is worth it to me.

Honestly ... the articles weren't always a complete waste. Some were quite good. Then again, some were fraught with misinformation too. Definitely not authoritative in any sense. Sometimes useful. Often not. The quizzes were their low point.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Honestly ... the articles weren't always a complete waste. Some were quite good. Then again, some were fraught with misinformation too...

The problem with this is you have to know the topic already to know when you are being fed a load of crap. If you can recognize it is crap, the article topic was not useful to you, and if you can't recognize it is crap, you are "learning" the misinformation.

Same with the quizzes. Even 10-20% objectively incorrect perpetuates myths or spreads incorrect information.

If they aren't going to provide quality content on softball, they should have stuck with their decision a decade or so ago to drop softball altogether because it wasn't a "major" sport.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Though I have found errors in the quizzes, your "60%" is a pathetic exaggeration. I doubt you even read them.

I absolutely do not anymore. You are correct. I had a subscription for 5 years. We used to grade them. 60 was common. Perhaps a slight exaggeration. But slight.

Perhaps they are better now, but they burned my trust a long time ago.