Dumb Athletic Directors.

[FTVMartin]

MHSAA does not require a phone call any longer. Simply log on to MHSAA.com and fill out the officials report. The state and both schools are notifed.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by FTVMartin

MHSAA does not require a phone call any longer. Simply log on to MHSAA.com and fill out the officials report. The state and both schools are notifed.

You are incorrect. I received a telephone call on Tuesday afternoon from MichiganHSAA Assistant Director Mark Uyl. He wanted to make sure I had contacted the Athletic Director the first school day after the ejectioni, because the school's AD had contacted him to request information about how to complete the his school's game report response.

MTD, Sr.

[MikeStrybel]

Mark's responses have always struck me as reasoned. I'm not sure what trouble he could have been in had he simply answered the AD's question with a "yes" and moved to terminate the call. I recognize that had he answered in the negative the AD had baited him, but it's not like the AD can prove he doesn't eject when he hears a player curse at him. It seems like the AD could have been shut down right there.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mark's responses have always struck me as reasoned. I'm not sure what trouble he could have been in had he simply answered the AD's question with a "yes" and moved to terminate the call. I recognize that had he answered in the negative the AD had baited him, but it's not like the AD can prove he doesn't eject when he hears a player curse at him. It seems like the AD could have been shut down right there.

Probably because "Yes" was not the right answer.

[asdf]

The AD's "question" had as much relevance to the phone call as him asking Mark who he voted for the the last presidential election.

There was no reason to answer the question.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

The AD's "question" had as much relevance to the phone call as him asking Mark who he voted for the the last presidential election.

There was no reason to answer the question.

Mark may have answered that question.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Probably because "Yes" was not the right answer.

Maybe it was, I don't pretend to know Mark's experience with cursing players. Rather than arguing whether the AD has the right to inquire, shut him down with a simple, 'yes'. It just seems like the AD would have no recourse had he simply affirmed. It's like asking a coach if he is done questioning your call. Either way he responds, he is.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mark's responses have always struck me as reasoned. I'm not sure what trouble he could have been in had he simply answered the AD's question with a "yes" and moved to terminate the call. I recognize that had he answered in the negative the AD had baited him, but it's not like the AD can prove he doesn't eject when he hears a player curse at him. It seems like the AD could have been shut down right there.

Perhaps the AD can prove that Mark has let a curse word go by in a previous game, and is trying to trick him. I can't think of any other reason why that pr*ck would keep on asking the same loaded question, with the barrel pointing straight at Mark.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Probably because "Yes" was not the right answer.

Definitely the wrong answer. So is "No."

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Perhaps the AD can prove that Mark has let a curse word go by in a previous game, and is trying to trick him. I can't think of any other reason why that pr*ck would keep on asking the same loaded question, with the barrel pointing straight at Mark.

SDS,
You're right. If Mark had allowed it before and the AD was aware of it, the affirmation would be a way for the official to be trapped. Given Mark's posts here, he doesn't impress me as an official who allows players to curse at him. Mark, did you tolerate cursing prior in a way that AD would be aware?

Keep dropping the pounds, Steve. Way to go!

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mark, did you tolerate cursing prior in a way that AD would be aware?

Mr. Strybel, that question is not germain (sic) to the subject we are discussing.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You are incorrect. I received a telephone call on Tuesday afternoon from MichiganHSAA Assistant Director Mark Uyl. He wanted to make sure I had contacted the Athletic Director the first school day after the ejection, because the school's AD had contacted him to request information about how to complete his school's game report response.

MTD, Sr.

School has to respond? Wonder what they say? "We obviously agree with the umpire's decision." I wonder what the point of responding is, unless the want to disagree?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by DG

School has to respond? Wonder what they say? "We obviously agree with the umpire's decision." I wonder what the point of responding is, unless the want to disagree?

Both the OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA has suspension policies when a player, coach, or other bench personnel are disqualified/ejected for unsportsmanlike behavior. The school's administration must let the StateHSAA know that an unsportsmanlike act has been committed by one of its participants and that it has imposed the StateHSAA mandated sanctions. That is the only proper resonse. The school is not allowed to turn its response into a he said/she said response.

MTD, Sr.