I think we all need to evaluate why we are here.

[JRutledge]

I am writing this to everyone. I just read an email from a longtime poster. It got me thinking.

I know I have been in some battles over the years. Some I started others just happen without much participation on my part at all. I think we need to refrain from the constant bickering and constant name calling. We are here to learn from each other in one way or another. Some of us have great experience at the top levels. Others are just getting started. I think those of us that have been around a lot longer, need to be more mindful of those that do not know any better yet. We all started somewhere. I was fortunate rather early to have very good umpires and officials take me under their wing and teach me things it would have taken others years to learn. I asked a lot of questions and did everything I could to get better. I read two books before my first game that Carl Childress wrote (at least some chapters in the book) and that was the beginning of my career. Many of the things I do now are based on those books. I just modified some of those things to fit current procedures and mechanics. But basically the similar philosophies apply.

I think we really need to put aside our egos and debate issues, not personalities. I know I say things at times that might be far fetched to many. But understand that I am a product of my environment and the things that folks in my area do.

I know saying this will never change many minds at all. Some will go back to the status quo and behave unprofessionally once again. Those are individuals none of us will ever reach. But I feel that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We are all here to learn from each other, even if it is minimal. I know I like to hear how people all over the world do things, even when I do not agree with it. I still know that there is more than one way to the mountain top. Just because I do something one way, does not mean someone else doing something else is wrong.

I know there will come a time very soon when I will not be on this site very much. But I would like to come back from time to time and be able to discuss future plays without all the hostility between members. We are all not going to agree one indicators and positioning, but we should be able to discuss those without much conflict.

Peace

[DG]

Well said. I do learn a thing or two from this site, if I did not I would not come here. Hopefully I have helped others learn a thing or two also. I don't always agree with some points of view but respect the right for anyone to have their point of view (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson).

[MrUmpire]

Kumbah ya my lord, kumbah ya.

[WindyCityBlue]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

[/B]

Nothing changes or has changed, Windy. You still have absolutely nothing to support your little fantasy. Trying to change your story line didn't work either, did it? Having a hard time remembering what you posted a few days ago?
Actually, I don't go back and read every word that I originally wrote. The story didn't change. The "conference" involved a look and a point the other way, I couldn't hear the words, since I wasn't there. But, I saw the call...no expertise needed, just basic eyesight involved. But you keep insisting that the guy who made the original call must agree to change and then correct the call...it didn't happen that way.

Your whole act is comprised of just the same old/same old name-calling, belittling people and trying to convince people that you really are a D1 umpire and that makes you right. Well, Windy, I don't believe that for a minute. D1 officials usually have at least a little bit of class, and also usually have some respect for their fellow officials.

I don't really care what you believe. I will sleep very well tonight knowing what my accomplishments are. Your dreams will always be about what you could have been. I'm living it. Too bad H.G. Welles can't help you out.

Maybe someday you can explain to me too why being a D-1 baseball umpire can also make you such an expert on NCAA basketball rules.

Just the ability to realize that becaus esomething is written doesn't mean it is absolute. Officiating is about judgement and reason. People at this level have egos and work hard to stay where we are. I have friends who work baseball, basketball and football at this level - all of us are extremely competitive and protective. You won't understand the pride and dedication involved until you are here.

And maybe you can also explain why you're so sure that I've never refereed at the D1 level- not that it matters one bit what my credentials, or anybody's credentials for that matter, are anyway. You're proof of that, Windy, if you are a D1 umpire. Your resume sure didn't make you right, did it?

Try English, next time; run ons are a bore. My judgement was based on the fact that you wouldn't argue rule book points with me, if you were. At this level, we do everything we can to get the call right. We work together and support each other, but ALWAYS put the game first. The athletes at thsi level make B/W rules very grey. Your intuition is just as much a tool as your training.

The bottom line is that you're still wrong, Windy. You have no credibility left after a week of this crap,and you are still as completely wrong as you were when you started. If being wrong is a reason for gloating, hey, feel free. And as for us being enemies? Nah! I could care less about you, Windy. Nothing that you say or call me bothers me even a little bit. Sorry about that.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I can see that... how long did it take you to respond to me? That is as sure a sign that you don't care as your pedigree was before. I "guess" that "maybe" you do.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
1) Actually, I don't go back and read every word that I originally wrote. The story didn't change.

2) Try English, next time; run ons are a bore.

3) My judgement was based on the fact that you wouldn't argue rule book points with me, if you were.

[/B]

Congratulations, Windy! It's quite an accomplishment to be wrong on the same subject in 3 different threads.

1) Your story didn't change, Windy? Not a bit? BIG Do you want me to cut and paste your exact posts again? I'd be glad to, if you want.

2) Same old/ same old. Great argument.

3) I wouldn't argue rule book points with you? What do you think that I've been doing for the last week? I just post the rules, Windy. There's really no arguing involved. There's no grey areas in the rules that I cited at all; they're very clear and precise. You can't argue a plainly written rule, Windy, even though you insist on trying.

Wrong and no credibility, Windy. Bottom line.

[WindyCityBlue]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

[/B]

Congratulations, Windy! It's quite an accomplishment to be wrong on the same subject in 3 different threads.

Again, Jurassic, show me exactly where I was wrong. Did the play happen? Yes. Did the calling official change the call? No. I believe that is completely opposite of your clearly written rule. I must be wrong because you say it couldn't happen. Get that time machine ready!

1) Your story didn't change, Windy? Not a bit? BIG Do you want me to cut and paste your exact posts again? I'd be glad to, if you want.

Go ahead...and I will repeat exactly what the original post was. Unlike you, I don't cut and paste everything, I dialogue with fresh thoughts. Apparently others can read and understand the discussion. If I shorted the story, for the sake of brevity, so be it. Everyone else knows what was originally said and the moral of it. Don't say that something can't happen...it did, much to your chagrin. I don't care what you read..the truth speaks volumes...it happened.

2) Same old/ same old. Great argument.
Thanks, at least we know that you can read.

3) I wouldn't argue rule book points with you? What do you think that I've been doing for the last week? I just post the rules, Windy. There's really no arguing involved. There's no grey areas in the rules that I cited at all; they're very clear and precise. You can't argue a plainly written rule, Windy, even though you insist on trying.

Oh my, you can't agrue a plainly written rule. Our entire legal system is based on arguing rules. Are you deft? This was as horrible an analogy as your previous counterpoint. By the way, we choose to focus as much on the intent of the rule as much as the language. My colleagues don't challenge wordsmiths, we live it and can call up a bamk of real experience. That is the difference between those there and those here.

Wrong and no credibility, Windy. Bottom line. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, bcasue you don't care what I say, right. Hurry, we are all waiting for you to show us how little you care.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue

Again, Jurassic, show me exactly where I was wrong.
If you insist, Windy. You stated that another official OVERRULED the calling official. I cited the very specific NCAA rules that won't allow that scenario to happen. How many times do I have to point that FACT out to you? It's simply a case of a WRITTEN rule VS. YOUR supposition. Obviously, the written rules wins EVERY time, Windy, whether you want to admit that or not.

Are you deft?
Not as deft as I used to be, but I'm still pretty agile.

[/B]

You're a hoot, Windy. You tried to prove your point by posting that the same situation happened about 3 different ways. Know what? I do believe that you just called yourself a liar. Amazing. You really should try to pick one story and then stick to it.

Wrong and no credibility, Windy. Bottom line.

Btw, what are you gonna do when they lock this thread? Start another one? Then you could be wrong in four of them.

[His High Holiness]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue

Again, Jurassic, show me exactly where I was wrong.
If you insist, Windy. You stated that another official OVERRULED the calling official. I cited the very specific NCAA rules that won't allow that scenario to happen. How many times do I have to point that FACT out to you? It's simply a case of a WRITTEN rule VS. YOUR supposition. Obviously, the written rules wins EVERY time, Windy, whether you want to admit that or not.


You're a hoot, Windy. You tried to prove your point by posting that the same situation happened about 3 different ways. Know what? I do believe that you just called yourself a liar. Amazing. You really should try to pick one story and then stick to it.

Wrong and no credibility, Windy. Bottom line.

Btw, what are you gonna do when they lock this thread? Start another one? Then you could be wrong in four of them.

You are lying again Jurassic. Windy has been entirely consistent. He told of a play where a call was changed. You have tried to twist what he said to make it appear that he was arguing that basketball referees can change other referees calls. In point of fact, what he has been arguing is that calls are being changed. Someway, somehow, they are being changed.

Here is where you are screwed up, Jurassic. Officials often don't follow the rulebooks literally.

I agree. I think Windy agrees. NCAA rules forbid officials from overruling other officials. Windy, however, is pointing out hypocrisy. He is pointed out that sometimes officials do overrule other officials. They may not call it that, but the effect is the same.

You wrote:

"Obviously, the written rules wins EVERY time, Windy, whether you want to admit that or not."

That is not obvious, at least in baseball. The written rules are regularly violated. In baseball, there is a strike zone written in the rulebook. For decades, the MLB umpires regularly and deliberately violated it.

MLB umpires are forbidden from consulting videotape in making their rulings. A few years ago, Frank Pulli consulted a videotape to get a call right.

Windy pointed out to you that basketball officials are engaged in exactly the same practice. They are violating their own rules in order to get calls right. You are dead wrong when you say that written rules win every time. All Windy has to do is show you one case where they don't and he has then proved you wrong. He showed you one case. It is you who have lost all credibility when you insist that he is wrong.

Jurassic, you must stop talking about rules and start addressing the plays that Windy brings up. Until you can explain how the real situations that Windy has identified are not in conflict with the rules, it is you who are blowing a lot of hot air.

We used to have an umpire here from down under. He engaged in exactly the sort of argumentative tactics that you engage in. He quoted rules endlessly and refused to address real life situations that seemed to be in conflict with the rules. When confronted with a situation that violated his preconceived ideas, he went through Olympic gymnastics to try to convince us that the situtation was not as it appeared to be.

The only thing that the man from down under convinced me of with his sophistry was that he was rec ball umpire at best. Likewise, I doubt your capabilities as well.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Jul 6th, 2004 at 07:11 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
[/B]

You are lying again Jurassic.

[/B][/QUOTE]I stopped reading right there, Peter.

You and Windy do have a lot in common. You both exhibit about the same amount of class.

Btw, it doesn't matter what you wrote anyway. You're still wrong. Windy is still wrong. And you both have the same amount of credibility when it comes to basketball rules. NONE!

Now why don't you head on back over to McGriffs and call Rut names for a while. Might make you feel better.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 6th, 2004 at 07:32 PM]

[JRutledge]

why these guys will not just ask this question over on the Basketball Board? Are they scared that they might be told off? Are they scared that they will be shown to be totally incompetent? Why are the steadily trying to debate this issue with JR and myself? I know we are not the only basketball officials here. We are not the only one at the level that both of us have worked.

I think the reason they do not do this, they do not want the truth or another perspective.

Peace