Dumb Athletic Directors.

[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.

[MikeStrybel]

Mr. Senger, why be so antagonistic? The AD is entitled to ask the question and for him, it is relevant. Unless that state association mandates that free speech is waived and the AD must remain silent except to express gratitude for the call, he is fully in his rights. Most ADs support their coaches unequivocally but some want to have all the facts before they apply penalties beyond what code allows. Yes, I have seen coaches penalized beyond the process by their administrators. I actually had a coach call me with an apology once while in the presence of his AD. Imagine Mark saying, "No, Mr. X, in fact, I gave your player and coach a warning in the third inning. That is why I ejected him." Maybe that happened. Clairvoyance is not a skill set I possess. Yes, the AD was probably pissed and looking to vent. Maybe he wanted to light a fire under Mark for past issues and this was his chance. Either way, I don't see a reason to be antagonistic toward the people responsible for paying us. Mark may have felt the need to be brief due to prior interactions with the guy. He may have felt the question would lead to something he couldn't address without scrutiny. I have asked this of Mark and await his replies. He seems very level headed and approachable.

I see no harm in answering it honestly. "Mr. X, 3-3-1g allows me some discretion but with #4 of your team, his actions warranted an ejection. I have to inform you of this and that is what I am doing. I wish you and your team good luck for the remainder of the season. Have a good day, sir/ma'am." Professional umpiring doesn't end when we leave the field. I hope Mark can shed some light on his past history with this team. If he had issues then I will support his decision 100%. Mark's posts have always led me to believe he can handle himself well.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mr. Senger, why be so antagonistic? The AD is entitled to ask the question and for him, it is relevant. Unless that state association mandates that free speech is waived and the AD must remain silent except to express gratitude for the call, he is fully in his rights. Most ADs support their coaches unequivocally but some want to have all the facts before they apply penalties beyond what code allows. Yes, I have seen coaches penalized beyond the process by their administrators. I actually had a coach call me with an apology once while in the presence of his AD. Imagine Mark saying, "No, Mr. X, in fact, I gave your player and coach a warning in the third inning. That is why I ejected him." Maybe that happened. Clairvoyance is not a skill set I possess. Yes, the AD was probably pissed and looking to vent. Maybe he wanted to light a fire under Mark for past issues and this was his chance. Either way, I don't see a reason to be antagonistic toward the people responsible for paying us. Mark may have felt the need to be brief due to prior interactions with the guy. He may have felt the question would lead to something he couldn't address without scrutiny. I have asked this of Mark and await his replies. He seems very level headed and approachable.

I see no harm in answering it honestly. "Mr. X, 3-3-1g allows me some discretion but with #4 of your team, his actions warranted an ejection. I have to inform you of this and that is what I am doing. I wish you and your team good luck for the remainder of the season. Have a good day, sir/ma'am." Professional umpiring doesn't end when we leave the field. I hope Mark can shed some light on his past history with this team. If he had issues then I will support his decision 100%. Mark's posts have always led me to believe he can handle himself well.

At the same time, Mark is under no obligation to answer what he feels are irrelevant questions (for that matter, he's under no obligation to answer relevant questions). The only antagonistic action was the AD insisting after Mark had declined to answer the question.

I'm with Mark that the question was inappropriate. We don't discuss history with coaches on the field and we shouldn't discuss history with other team representatives. The only thing relevant is what a particular player did. What other players in other games did or did not do is irrelevant.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mr. Senger, why be so antagonistic? The AD is entitled to ask the question and for him, it is relevant.

I believe Mr Senger commented the way he did because what you're asking is, in fact, no more germaine to the issue than when the AD asked. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could offer the opinion that it's as if you're the AD or a minion, trying to draw him out. But I'm not, so I won't.

Maybe he wanted to light a fire under Mark for past issues and this was his chance. Either way, I don't see a reason to be antagonistic toward the people responsible for paying us.

I'd argue it's the bookkeeper that's responsible, with the principal approving, since the school pays the money, not the AD. And as to your "Maybe" - you think? That's the only reason I come up with for why the AD bothered to ask that detail. There may be some pockets of exceeding civility where there's another scenario, but in the real world, the AD's not looking to do anything but save his guy.

I see no harm in answering it honestly.

Me either, but where you seem to differ in opinion with many here is what constitutes an honest answer. "Mr X, that's not relevant to the issue at hand. Your player was ejected, and you have been notified. Please see my report for further details. Thank you." It's an honest answer, and since it sounds better than "It's none of your d--- business," it's fairly professional as well.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mr. Senger, why be so antagonistic?

I was being sarcastic. It's the same answer he gave the AD when he called.