[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I can certainly see how this is frustrating...to me, it's just like the "yeah but" official who doesn't take advice from officials that have been doing this a lot longer then they have....especially on a rule that is crystal clear. I can't for the mind of me understand how someone in their second year of officiating can try and debate this much on matters such as philosophy, mechanics, and rules. Thirty years of playing rec ball and watching basketball just doesn't cut it. It literally took me three and half years of being here before I started feeling confident in helping others with rules, philosophy, etc, and even then, I'm real careful in what I type.

APG: Maybe you are familiar with high school or college Policy Debate (or Public Forum) competitions. A new, real-world mock resolution is chosen every year. Teams go head-to-head with one another--half the time affirming the resolution, the other half negating it--round after round, tournament after tournament. As the year(s) progress(es), one powerful learning achievement for many is learning to avoid emotional attachment to particular points of view, so that you can accept/adopt and adapt to new points of view submitted by others, without frustration. Both sides enter each round as though they posses full conviction in their respective positions, which serves to maximize what each learns from the other, in the end. That's my approach, here. Many of you have a different attitude, and then make the mistake of ascribing to me that same attitude. I more just kind of shake the tree to see what falls out, you know?

Originally Posted by mbyron

Because words have meanings.

So, you, mbyron, must become frustrated whenever another disagrees with you about the meaning of words? That's a lot of potential frustration for you, especially considering the Federation felt it necessary to crack down on officials, collectively, for what the Federation views as substantial misinterpretation of the rules as written.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's about explaining the basics of what makes a competent official above the middle school or rec league level.

If he wants to just guess at what contact is a foul or not, fine. If he wants to move up, then it might better serve him to actually figure out the logic and reasoning behind the decisions.

Snaq, you, yourself, have pointed out before how competent officials, when shown the same video clip, disagree about rules application regarding it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I should have known when he offered the fan/coach/player catechism, "a foul is a foul."

Anything else is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? "Some fouls are fouls"? "A foul is sometimes a foul"? How would you distinguish between "A foul is a foul," and Jurassic's position that a rule should NEVER be waived?