Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond
What would make someone who has been discussing rules here for almost 2 decades think there is any possibility they might be correct?
|
Just wanted to be 100 plus % sure before I emailed a criticism to a very powerful and influential member of my local, state, and international organization.
Sent a polite and respectful email criticism (as well as some compliments) and have, thus far, been ignored.
This person hates "getting into to weeds" and "down rabbit holes" (which I understand, but this error is neither), and is extremely well prepared for most rule discussions, but is sometimes not very good when discussing "off the cuff" pop up questions.
I'm still waiting for an answer to a question about our Refresher Exam emailed a month ago.
In fact, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question about last year's Refresher Exam.
Some people hate being questioned and also hate admitting mistakes.
Same person told us that our new Connecticut Sit A Tick Technical Foul rule was for all player technical fouls, and more recently told us that it was only for unsporting technical fouls, without admitting that this was a major change from what we were previously told.
And, of course, those that attended the first meeting, and didn't attend the second meeting, and don't bother to check our local website and get "into the weeds" (requiring several clicks), won't know this.
Same person often tells us to do something "by the book" and fails to broach the "gray areas" we often see in "real games", kind of like, "Do as I say, not as I do", but without ever saying it, or even implying it (not even in code).