Dumb Athletic Directors.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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?

"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?"

[JRutledge]

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?"

Yeah, that is going to go over well.

Peace

[archangel]

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?"

A great example...

[yawetag]

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?"

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

[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.