a rough night

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

But you do want senior officials who screw up rules and foul administration and won't listen to anyone who tries to tell them they are wrong??!!

Of course not! This is the point! Combine that with a pigheaded rookie and what do you have? A very nasty problem. I have worked with senior officials like this. What I have learned is they don't move up the ladder, however, as you pursue this profession and progress up the ladder, you may run into some of these people. I think the lesson here is to stand down, report the incident or questionable call to the assigner, don't ever accept an assignment with this person ever again. Read MadCityRef input, well said MadCityRef!

A quick side note. Because I didn't keep track of this moron senior official the first time I worked with him. I got him again 2 years later. Damn! I knew I remember this guy! Objective, keep good notes....

Wow... in this particular case the R was dead wrong, but by your standard that doesn't matter because he's the senior, more experienced guy and the younger, less-experienced guy should just go with what the senior, more experienced guy says...that's assinine.

That is not asinine and that is not my standard, but that is our society. We should respect our seniors. Most of us are too proud to step down when the time has come. We see this in all sports. There are players who don't know when to let it go. Boxers who continue to box until they have no more brains. Didn't Sylvester Stallone just make another boxing movie, this guy is about 60 years old, George Foreman wants to fight again, come on...it's all over our society.

As far as officiating. It is unacceptable for an assigner to put a guy out there on the court who doesn't know the rules or is too old. Unacceptable, but it happens. Now what are we going to do?

I know I'm right, but...

I worked a college playoffs game 2 years ago with a guy who couldn't even run up and down the court. We had to try to leave him in the C slot. I had no idea until the game started. This official needs to give it up. The assigner got no business giving him games. This is a problem and I got no idea how to solve it.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I think I've articulated my position pretty clearly. Have you read these posts?

Yes, I read them and I thought they where very good points. However, you choose to insult me rather than focus on the issue. My grandmother once told me, if you got nothing good to say, then don't say nothing at all. You should consider my grandmothers thoughts. What my grandmother really meant was it is best to remain silent and not create an enemy.

Maybe one day, if lucky, you will get to be a grandmother.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

I worked a college playoffs game 2 years ago.

Lah me........

Now he's not only morphed magically into an assignor, he's also doing college playoff games.....

JMO and McGriffs redux......

Tell us all about your pro games next.

[refnjoe]

Hmm, and I always thought that thing in March was referred to as a tournament.

Maybe he meant that he worked the NBA playoffs?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

Yes, I read them and I thought they where very good points. However, you choose to insult me rather than focus on the issue. My grandmother once told me, if you got nothing good to say, then don't say nothing at all. You should consider my grandmothers thoughts. What my grandmother really meant was it is best to remain silent and not create an enemy.

Maybe one day, if lucky, you will get to be a grandmother.

Peace

And talking about your grandmother is supposed to help me focus on the issue?

Okay, here's the issue. You asked how to handle a disagreement with a partner. You prescribed how you would do it, and think others should do the same. Several people have told you that that's not what the book says, and that's not even how it's handled in most of the country, but you keep insisting you know what's best. You keep asking questions that others keep answering, and then you are not answering the questions that people keep asking you. The issue has been focused on, answered and repeated, again and again.

Part of "the issue" is your authority to insist that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Where do you get your authority? What book citations can you give for your position? What kind of ball do you work? WHat associations do you belong to? I am having a hard time focusing on the issue of your disagreements with JR and others, because I'm having a hard time keeping you as a referee in focus. You could help with that. What are your reffing credentials?

btw, I am a grandmother. And I do indeed feel fortunate. I was lucky to be a mother at all, because of some physical difficulties, and now I'm a Nonna. Way, way past lucky.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by refnjoe

Hmm, and I always thought that thing in March was referred to as a tournament.

Maybe he meant that he worked the NBA playoffs?

I don't know do the JUCO JV/s call their playoffs tournaments?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, here's the issue. You asked how to handle a disagreement with a partner. You prescribed how you would do it, and think others should do the same.

Hold the phone, I merely suggested a different view of the issue. Last I checked, this is still America, and I have a right to my opinion. Now, I don't recall saying this is the "ONLY" way, or the CORRECT way to handle this type of issue. Not every condition that can happen to you on the court is defined in the precious rulebook.

Several people have told you that that's not what the book says, and that's not even how it's handled in most of the country, but you keep insisting you know what's best. You keep asking questions that others keep answering, and then you are not answering the questions that people keep asking you. The issue has been focused on, answered and repeated, again and again.

Actually, you guys didn't get my point until about page 3. If you view this as one question asked and answer. You could say that. But if you view this as a discussion, which is the way I view it. Then engage the discussion if you choose. If you got nothing to say, then it's okay to past. It is not okay to attack another person credibility because you disagree with them. We are suppose to be better than that, we are the ones that are suppose to uphold the integrity. Yet we attack each other like piranhas on fresh meat if someone says something you disagree with.

Part of "the issue" is your authority to insist that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Where did you get this from? I have no authority here. I am a nobody. I merely engage this forum in a discussion on the rules of basketball. Debate me if you choose, ignore me if you must, but don't hate me because I share a different opinion.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

It is not okay to attack another person credibility because you disagree with them. We are suppose to be better than that, we are the ones that are suppose to uphold the integrity. Yet we attack each other like piranhas on fresh meat if someone says something you disagree with.

I certainly can't attack your credibility when I don't know what your credibility is.

And while I've gotten a little snippy with you, I certainly haven't attacked you like a piranha. And if you really think it's a "we" problem, then you can also stop attacking.

So you've expressed your opinion, told why you think that way, and others have disagreed with you and told why they think their way. Are we at the point where we all agree to disagree? That would be fine with me. And probably everybody else on this thread.

But it would still be nice to have some clue as to who you are and what your credibility is. It's just hard to understand where you're coming from, when we don't know where you're coming from.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I certainly can't attack your credibility when I don't know what your credibility is.

Geeze, Woman, he's already told you that he's an assignor and he does college playoff games. How could he possibly have any more credibility than that? The man literally reeks of credibility!

Well, there is the wee, tiny matter of not owning any rule books and not knowing the basic rules, but that shouldn't really bring his credibility into question, should it? Huh? Should it?

JMO obviously....

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

And while I've gotten a little snippy with you, I certainly haven't attacked you like a piranha. And if you really think it's a "we" problem, then you can also stop attacking.

Piranhas attack in groups, it was not meant as a you only attack. I am the nicest gentleness man you will ever meet online, but cross me, and I will strike back, I will strike back!

But it would still be nice to have some clue as to who you are and what your credibility is. It's just hard to understand where you're coming from, when we don't know where you're coming from.

I am here only to learn and debate the rules as I think I understand them. Debate and discussion is good for the old sole that thinks he knows it all, but learns that he really doesn't know much at all. Case in point, what you read and what you interpret you just read can be two different things. I think it was around the 3rd or 4th page, I learned that the calling official has precedence over the call. Rule 2-6 says no official has the authority to set aside or question another officials call. It does not exactly say, calling official has precedence over a call in his/her primary area. For me, this is key because now, I can take my understanding of this rule one step further than I could before, which is a benefit to my overall understanding. Just go to the table and report your call and attempt to move the game on. Don't stand there arguing with your partner over who's right or who's more right. Big key for me. It came at a price too, I mean I had to take a few insults, got sidetracked a little bit nursing some off-topic stuff, but, just like in the game, I kept my focus and I got thru it, and I got what I needed.

Be not too concern as to who I am but what I represent.
Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

Piranhas attack in groups, it was not meant as a you only attack. I am the nicest gentleness man you will ever meet online, but cross me, and I will strike back, I will strike back!


I am here only to learn and debate the rules as I think I understand them. Debate and discussion is good for the old sole that thinks he knows it all, but learns that he really doesn't know much at all. Case in point, what you read and what you interpret you just read can be two different things. I think it was around the 3rd or 4th page, I learned that the calling official has precedence over the call. Rule 2-6 says no official has the authority to set aside or question another officials call. It does not exactly say, calling official has precedence over a call in his/her primary area. For me, this is key because now, I can take my understanding of this rule one step further than I could before, which is a benefit to my overall understanding. Just go to the table and report your call and attempt to move the game on. Don't stand there arguing with your partner over who's right or who's more right. Big key for me. It came at a price too, I mean I had to take a few insults, got sidetracked a little bit nursing some off-topic stuff, but, just like in the game, I kept my focus and I got thru it, and I got what I needed.

Be not too concern as to who I am but what I represent.
Peace

Okay, what do you represent? I'm still not sure. Although I'm impressed that you have changed your tune from the beginning of the thread. Not everyone can do that.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, what do you represent? I'm still not sure. Although I'm impressed that you have changed your tune from the beginning of the thread. Not everyone can do that.

I represent the voice of reason. I represent those voices that are afraid to speak for fear of being wrong. I am too old to be wrong, no, I am too old to care about being wrong. My motto is: you don't have to be perfect to be a good official. You just have to be consistent.

I will leave you with this, a wise man once said, it is best to be consistently bad than to be inconsistent.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

I represent the voice of reason.

Wow. Just wow. It's not easy, but you've left me speechless.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Old School

I represent the voice of reason. I represent those voices that are afraid to speak for fear of being wrong. I am too old to be wrong, no, I am too old to care about being wrong. My motto is: you don't have to be perfect to be a good official. You just have to be consistent.

I will leave you with this, a wise man once said, it is best to be consistently bad than to be inconsistent.

Peace

This guy hasn't changed a bit. Everything he says is pure nonsense. It's of no use whatsoever here. He constantly avoids saying what his experience with officiating is. I'm betting he's never officiated a basketball game in his life. He's only here to cause trouble. What a waste of space.

[Scrapper1]

I will leave you with this, a wise man once said, it is best to be consistently bad than to be inconsistent.

I've got Old School on "ignore", but somebody else quoted this, and I couldn't believe it.

Who said this? What "wise man" would spout such completely inanity? You would rather ALWAYS be bad, than to be MOSTLY very good with a couple of bad moments? Really? That's the stupidest thing I've read in this forum in a long long time. Can we pull this idiot's account?