Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
Agreed, APG, but this is an online forum. I have heard there are some in my association who don't tolerate being challenged due to the fact they have more years under their belts than others (many of whom retired last year as the Board has come to be dominated by a younger generation), but all of the Pool 1 guys I have talked to are open-minded. One, in particular, is in his fourth decade (used to be a D1 official, invited to an NBA camp). He has no problem being challenged. None of them have taken my questioning as a personal affront, that I know of, or become frustrated. They can make the important distinction between crew consistency on the court, and a robust discussion of the rules around a table. An online forum is a perfect venue for such discussions. My point with the Debate analogy is that it isn't just for argument's sake. There are derivative benefits from the method, itself.
... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH I'M IN LOVE WITH MY BRAIN
|
Another "Gone with the Wind" tome without a single instance of a play being described/discussed and without a single rules citation.
He may be a genius scholastically but he lacks a single ounce of common sense when it comes to basketball officiating.
The reason no one wants to debate rules with him in his association is because he never discusses anything basketball related. All he does is play a game of "got you" with the words in the rule book. He's arrogant and narcisistic. He wants nothing to do with discussing basketball plays and trying to get better as an official.