"I doubt I am alone in that standard because all Mark could have done is made the situation worse by telling everyone what was typical for him personally.'

And I repeat:

AD: Do you always eject a player for swearing?

No Sir, not in all cases. If it is "judged to be of a minor nature" (NFHS3-3-1g2 penalty), , I will properly warn the individual player one on one and let the coach know about it. However, in this case the profanity was loud enough that everyone on and off the field clearly understood what was said and could be offended by its use.

You just controlled the conversation and let the AD know that not only do you know the rules but, have a very good understanding of them and used discretion in the application of them.

And again, if the AD had a problem with that, then he is an Ahole.

Stick to the rules and facts and leave your opinions and emotons at home. Thats the part of officiating that is hardest to learn.

My opinion is...

1. I think the requirement to call the school is nonsensical.

2. The AD's question about MTD's "practice" in other unrelated situations was wholly inappropriate, and MTD's decision to decline to answer it was proper and sound.

Had the AD instead asked for more "contextual" information about the situation involving his player, I believe I would have cautiously and circumspectly answered his question.

JM

If this was FB I would hit the "LIKE" button.

Peace

Because it was clearly obvious the AD wanted to get into a pissing match. A completely inappropriate one, I might add.

It was not a simple question. It was the beginning of an S-storm, one Mark properly avoided. You can't tell me you think AD was asking this for any reason other than to get into an argument, can you?

If that is his purpose then he is a RAT too, and less said the better. Follow the stupid state rules and no more. These rules apparently require you to speak with, but not to argue with.

I agree, Mike. As I said before, if the AD was wanting more information for a possible higher-degree punishment for the kid, then he went about the questioning the wrong way.

My seasons go a lot smoother because I ignore the stupid state "rules". The state association is not my employer, and I don't see any compelling reason to care about what they think I ought to do relative to a contract I have with a school to officiate baseball games at that school.

Schools are association members; officials are not. You don't have to dance to every tune it calls.

Don't they have a say over if you are eligible to work games? The requirement was to have them inform the school, not give reasons why they made a call or what is even typical. Mark followed that with flying colors and probably could tell by the tone in the voice of the AD and the nature of the questions how it was going to end up. If he had had a confrontation with him it would have been blown out of proportion. Best to just get off the phone and move an anyway. Not sure how anyone can think that is not acceptable. But then again people have a right to their opinions.

Peace

Do you really think that was the AD's intent when asking Mark the question? I don't.

Me too.

"Sir, I pulled you over because you were driving 61 in a 55 mph zone."

"Do you stop everyone who drives 6 mph over the limit?"

Yeah, that is going to go over well. :D

Peace

A great example...

"No, only the ones that act like a$$es. Can I see your license?"