[stripes]

It is interesting to me as I have read through a couple of the "hot" threads of the last few days that many of us refuse to look at other people's opinions as valid. I believe that we have a need to be right and want others to back us in our opinions, but we, as a group, are too willing (IMO) to castigate others when we don't agree. I understand that sometimes things are written that are confusing and we want clarification, but lots of times we beat the horse long after it is dead.

Now, I am not naive enough to believe that we will come to agreements all the time and on all subjects, but peolple have presented valid arguments for two sides of debatable issues. My observation has been that officials who call the majority of their games at the HS level and below, like a more strict interpretation of the rules and those that call the majority of their games at a level above HS like a more liberal interpretation of the rule book.

Now, which one is right? IMO, it depends on where you are calling your games. Eli made a good point about "safe" calls. You can make a call and be safe, but you can pass on some of these calls too. The thing I believe we need to do is read what is written, consider who it is written by and then look at their view and ask ourselves if we can use this information in our game.

So, what is the point of this ramble? We don't need to convert others to our way of thinking. We don't have to agree, but we don't have to be disagreeable while we do it. This board is a great forum to share ideas and philosophies--so let's do that, share.

Merry Christmas to all!