Look back rule violation?

[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.

[SNIPERBBB]

Softball isn't the only sport Referee has issues getting things right...