|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
Okay, I'll explain my thinking, but I'm not going to argue. In the OP, a coach, who is also learning to referee used his reffing experience to win a game. He planned to do that, and he managed to win, but not in the way he planned. That's the humor.
What I like about it is that he planned for better refs, taught the kids some better play, how to win by being more skilled, how to work within the guidelines of a better reffed game. His kids did learn a better game, they just didn't end up winning by it.
WHen he got there, he SAW better refs at the game before, and thought he was in business. But later he had to adjust, although not as he expected. He did adjust, though, and by working with what he was given, accepting it and using it ( as we always say the best coaches will do), he squeaked the game out of the L column.
I don't see that he liked it, or is crowing about his win. Just commenting on how his plan to be a better coach by following our advice backfired. Thus the humor.
Gotta admit, I'm surprised that I find this funny, too, I guess. My general theory is that it's better to "rise above it". I might have said he should have lost by playing a better game, rather than descending to win at all costs. What saves it for me is that he CHOSE his actions at each point based on his analysis of the situation, and it doesn't look like his emotions ruled him. It appears to me that he made a rational decision. And he did what we told him, after all, in adjusting to the refs he had, and using their calls and no-calls to his advantage. Aren't we a little flattered by that?
|