|
RookieDude wrote:
------------------------------------------
Here is a reply for you jbduke...quit being so ANAL!
Like another poster said..."Let him hang himself".
Why would you want to try to "screw" over another official?
Keep you mouth shut or you will never be trusted in that association!
I may sound harsh...but I would rather officiate with a guy on a couple pain pills than a back stabbing "tattle tell"...and that is how you would come across. IMHO
Dude
-----------------------------------
Dude, to address your harangue point-by-point:
1) If you think that being concerned about the welfare and yes, safety of the young people who were in our charge constitutes being "ANAL," then I am happy to live with that description, and will not stop embodying it. Ours was a physical game, and late in the game my partner showed himself unfit to handle it. I did not state in the first post that the third member of the crew is a very weak official, so I was already covering for two before the partner-in-original-question went AWOL. I basically worked the last eight minutes of that game by myself, so I feel even more justified than I otherwise might about giving serious consideration to this matter.
2) Regardless of my course of action, I would not be the one "screwing" another official. I don't want to "screw" any of my colleagues, and could not in this case even if I wanted to. It is he that decided to pain-relieve at half, and it is he who gave tacit acceptance to any consequences from doing so.
3) "Keep you(sic) mouth shut or you will never be trusted in that association." It is quite possible that A), if I were to give air to this situation, some would recognize that I was aware of the ramifications for myself of such a claim, and respect and trust me even more for coming forward in the face of difficult circumstances. It is also possible (actually it is true) that B) I am more concerned with my own integrity, as well as the integrity of the crews that our association puts on the floor, than I am with losing the trust of people who would think that I am the individual in the wrong in this situation. Again, I am not the person who took strong pain medication at half, then proceeded to go out in the second half and overtime and nearly screw up a ballgame.
4) As for the "back-stabbing" line, if you think you should be able to take, with impunity, action such as the one above, then I am simpatico with your preference not to work with me.
As I have addressed above, what disturbs me about you is not that you might disagree with me on how to handle the situation (which can by no means be clear to you), but that you hold my partner blameless. In fact, it seems that it is I who am contemptible to you for taking issue with such behavior. The logic implied by "let him hang himself" only reinforces my assessment. In this context, to say no more than "let him hang himself" implies that his is not a wrong worthy of any attempts at corrective action. But how can something be "wrong" if it cannot draw efforts to corrective action? At best, your words speak neutrally to the actions, and at worst they give them tacit acceptance.
Even worse is to contemplate what it would mean if he actually did "hang himself." This would mean that he had again neglected his responsibilities, and again compromised a competition, and maybe even the safety and health of players.
Your analysis of the situation puts me and my standing in the association at the center of the question. My concern is not with myself nearly so much as it is with the students who are put directly under the care of me and my colleagues several times a week. If anyone would be "stabbed in the back" by any course of action, it would be these blameless students, by me doing nothing.
|