Dumb Athletic Directors.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Snaqs:

The money I am sending to you and Rut are being listed on my Schedule C as professional services.

MTD, Sr.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

"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?"

+1

[asdf]

No way am I letting the AD dictate the purpose of the call. His question is irrelevant to the purpose of the call.

In this situation, I would send a copy of the report directly to the Principal, noting that his/her AD did not agree with the ejection for the F-Bomb.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by asdf

No way am I letting the AD dictate the purpose of the call. His question is irrelevant to the purpose of the call.

In this situation, I would send a copy of the report directly to the Principal, noting that his/her AD did not agree with the ejection for the F-Bomb.

I don't know if I'd go down that road. The AD never said he didn't agree ... that would be an inference on MTD's part. I think you just prolong the sh1tstorm if you make that notation in your report.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

I don't know if I'd go down that road. The AD never said he didn't agree ... that would be an inference on MTD's part. I think you just prolong the sh1tstorm if you make that notation in your report.

The ejection was for the F-Bomb. Not about any other possible swearing.

If the AD agreed with the ejection he would have (and should have) advised that he appreciated the call and would address it on his end in an appropriate manner, possibly over and above the sanctions handed down by the state association.

His actions are right on par with a coach loudly telling his player "that's OK Jimmy, the ptich was low" and then responding to your warning by claiming that he was "just talking to his player".

The Principal (the AD's boss in most cases) needs to know about this.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

The ejection was for the F-Bomb. Not about any other possible swearing.

If the AD agreed with the ejection he would have (and should have) advised that he appreciated the call and would address it on his end in an appropriate manner, possibly over and above the sanctions handed down by the state association.

His actions are right on par with a coach loudly telling his player "that's OK Jimmy, the ptich was low" and then responding to your warning by claiming that he was "just talking to his player".

The Principal (the AD's boss in most cases) needs to know about this.

I am actually amazed and I shouldn't be that there are people do not get this very basic point.

Peace

[jicecone]

Yes we do Rut but, some of us also believe that acting professional both on and off the field, far outweigh this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Yes we do Rut but, some of us also believe that acting professional both on and off the field, far outweigh this.

So are you saying that MTD was unprofessional by refusing to answer bait disguised as a question? I've had a few coaches ask me the same question, when I gave their player a T for profanity. It's never a legitimate question; it's always an attempt to trap you in a corner.

Answer it if you feel you must, but don't throw the "unprofessional" tag at an official who refuses to engage an obstinant rat (ADs can be rats, too.)

[Publius]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

It's only "better" to get off the phone and move on; "best" is not getting on the phone at all.

They have a say over some games directly, and some indirectly. This differs from state to state. They can (and have) removed me from consideration for the state tournament beyond the first round. Given the quality of about 50% of those who work the state finals every year, I wouldn't even consider it an honor to be offered a slot, because merit clearly is not at the top of the selection criteria.

They can refuse to register me, and schools could then still hire me if they wished, but at the risk of being excluded from participation in the state tournament if they are found out. Few would do that, I'm sure.

State associations will not involve themselves in directly saying that schools may absolutely not hire unregistered officials, because they know that puts them perilously close to being labeled an employer. The irrefutable fact is, I have no contract with the state association; therefore, I have no reason to care what they "require" or recommend.

If I think it's reasonable (e.g., a written report within 48 hours), I do it; if not, (e.g., calling the ADs, PU covers third on a naked triple, signing scorebooks) I don't.

On this issue, I sit in the catbird's seat: the schools want quality officials, and I am one, but if the state association puts me on a blacklist, I couldn't care less. HS baseball is a break-even filler between the profitable college and summer-ball seasons. It's the lowest quality and least profitable season I work.

Officials do themselves no favors by allowing state associations to dictate the terms of how independent contractors conduct their business, when those associations are not contractual parties.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So are you saying that MTD was unprofessional by refusing to answer bait disguised as a question? I've had a few coaches ask me the same question, when I gave their player a T for profanity. It's never a legitimate question; it's always an attempt to trap you in a corner.

Answer it if you feel you must, but don't throw the "unprofessional" tag at an official who refuses to engage an obstinant rat (ADs can be rats, too.)

So why don't you give the coach the T also, hell, you already know what he is implying and being the Rat he is just get it over with and toss him too. Now you've shown everybody who is running that game.

MTD made a post and certainly expected opinions about it. I gave my opinion about it and about Ruts comments too.

You sir are the one making implications and I am kind of suprised you even have to ask a question like that because, as you have already shown above, your a master at determining intent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jicecone

So why don't you give the coach the T also, hell, you already know what he is implying and being the Rat he is just get it over with and toss him too. Now you've shown everybody who is running that game.

MTD made a post and certainly expected opinions about it. I gave my opinion about it and about Ruts comments too.

You sir are the one making implications and I am kind of suprised you even have to ask a question like that because, as you have already shown above, your a master at determining intent.

And you're certainly entitled to share your opinion, but implying that his response to the coach was unprofessional was off base. It doesn't take a "master at determining intent" to figure out what a coach or AD means by "do you always...." in this context. He's not trying to get the context of the situation; he's trying to coach MTD. Personally, I find that to be unprofessional.

I made an inference that seems pretty fair given the context. You implied MTD was unprofessional with his response.

If he wanted to know exactly how it played out, then when MTD said his question wasn't germaine, he should have simply re-worded it. The man has a freaking college degree, he can figure out how to ask an appropriate question to get the answer he wants.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Yes we do Rut but, some of us also believe that acting professional both on and off the field, far outweigh this.

This is where you lost me. What in our job description requires me to answer any questions of an AD that does not hire me to do my job in the first place?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is where you lost me. What in my job description requires me to answer any questions of an AD that does not hire me to do my job in the first place? Peace

I'm only going to disagree with this slightly. Even if you use an assigner, like we do here for basketball, the ADs are the "end-user" (to butcher a business term).

I agree with the rest, however. No way I'm answering rhetorical questions designed to make a point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Publius

It's only "better" to get off the phone and move on; "best" is not getting on the phone at all.

They have a say over some games directly, and some indirectly. This differs from state to state. They can (and have) removed me from consideration for the state tournament beyond the first round. Given the quality of about 50% of those who work the state finals every year, I wouldn't even consider it an honor to be offered a slot, because merit clearly is not at the top of the selection criteria.

They can refuse to register me, and schools could then still hire me if they wished, but at the risk of being excluded from participation in the state tournament if they are found out. Few would do that, I'm sure.

State associations will not involve themselves in directly saying that schools may absolutely not hire unregistered officials, because they know that puts them perilously close to being labeled an employer. The irrefutable fact is, I have no contract with the state association; therefore, I have no reason to care what they "require" or recommend.

If I think it's reasonable (e.g., a written report within 48 hours), I do it; if not, (e.g., calling the ADs, PU covers third on a naked triple, signing scorebooks) I don't.

On this issue, I sit in the catbird's seat: the schools want quality officials, and I am one, but if the state association puts me on a blacklist, I couldn't care less. HS baseball is a break-even filler between the profitable college and summer-ball seasons. It's the lowest quality and least profitable season I work.

Officials do themselves no favors by allowing state associations to dictate the terms of how independent contractors conduct their business, when those associations are not contractual parties.

If I am going to do the games at any level, I am going to follow all their procedures to the best of my ability. If you cannot do that, do not take the game. When you accept a contract, you accept the responsibility of what is being asked of you. Of course you do not have to follow those rules, but why give someone a chance to say you did not follow the procedures? You do not do this, they will claim you do not do other things just as fast.

Peace

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Publius

State associations will not involve themselves in directly saying that schools may absolutely not hire unregistered officials, because they know that puts them perilously close to being labeled an employer. The irrefutable fact is, I have no contract with the state association; therefore, I have no reason to care what they "require" or recommend.

If I think it's reasonable (e.g., a written report within 48 hours), I do it; if not, (e.g., calling the ADs, PU covers third on a naked triple, signing scorebooks) I don't.

Are you sure you don't have a contract with the state association? Isn't it called a license?