Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
That is crap. You obviously do not know the history of this person. You do not know how this person has basically lied about NF approval or the positions of the NF on this issue. Then when it has been suggested that the motives are more than "making the game better" he claims he is not trying to sell anything and his motives are simply pure. Well that is not the position of KB and this is why many here have pointed this out over and over again. And this is the reason many people have gone after him (he has actually posted here to defend his offense).
Also being a good official means you apply experience and know when to not look like you know everything, when you have achieved nothing. 
Peace |
You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition.
Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position. This may come as a shock to you, but disagreeing with a message doesn't require being disagreeable with the messenger. As for "crap", a perfect example is resorting to character assassination based on speculation and suspicion and the childish notion that denegrating the messenger somehow weakens his message.
As for the A-11 Offense, I couldn't care less what people think of it, other than their comments adding to my understanding of it, what it requires and whether it violates any existing rules. I appreciate the concerns some have, although I think most of those thus far expressed are somewhat exaggerated. At present, I do not see where this "loophole" violates existing rules, but requires a very high level of compliance with several other rules which causes me to question it's overall practicality. If those rules are subsequently amended to prohibit this "loophole", fine no problem, then we'll all deal with the revisions.
Personally I'm simply disappointed with the with the tone and temperment of some responses objecting to this formation. They speak poorly for the demeanor and manners of officials, in general. Picking apart previous statements to suggest they mean something that may, or may not, have ever entered the speakers mind based on pure speculation is, dare I suggest, "crap" of the first order.
What I may, or may not, have achieved is simply none of your concern and has nothing to do with this issue, or this discussion, much as your achievements or failures have no practical interest to me. I would appreciate any useful detail anyone can provide about the management of this formation and practical advice regarding mechanics that would be helpful in monitoring the eligibility of receivers.
Until such time the rules are adjusted to prohibit this formation, I'll consider it legal and focus on preparing for it and dealing with it. I haven't yet heard all the questions, much less know all the answers, and whining and complaining hasn't helped shorten that gap. How close I come to, " look(ing) like you know everything" is largely a matter of how ignorant those doing the looking actually are.