NF 2012 Rules Changes

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Dude, I started the damn thread. If you do not like the conversation, then go somewhere else. No one is asking you to care what is said. I do not read all the crap here I do not like and I certainly do not complain about it. Don't read and you will be happier. I do not read most of the crap here and I do not need a little button to tell me what to ignore.

Peace

Dude, the point is that the conversation was about the FED rule changes for 2012, which is fine. You two had to get into your petty, nonsensical argument and derail the thread off topic like the both of you have done in the past in other threads. PM each other if you want to. You two have an uncanny ability to talk in circles trying to prove to everyone that you're right, when in reality you just turn threads into piles of crap.

The ignore button doesn't tell you what to ignore, it simply lets you ignore other forum members.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Dude, the point is that the conversation was about the FED rule changes for 2012, which is fine. You two had to get into your petty, nonsensical argument and derail the thread off topic like the both of you have done in the past in other threads. PM each other if you want to. You two have an uncanny ability to talk in circles trying to prove to everyone that you're right, when in reality you just turn threads into piles of crap.

The ignore button doesn't tell you what to ignore, it simply lets you ignore other forum members.

Grow up. You just displayed arrogance while condemning it.

I feel no need to shy from those who misstate the facts or cloud them. If you find it petty and nonsensical to state what the rule book mandates then you should hang up the gear. Finally, this is not an Illinois issue. While we may reside in this state, the rule being discussed is a national standard.

[MikeStrybel]

I find it hard to believe that officials cannot deal with those who challenge their opinions publicly. It must be tough for them on the field without an ignore feature for 'protection'.

A quick check of other forums shows that the guy who whined about being PMd is considered a troublemaker almost everywhere he shows up. That tells the tale.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Dude, the point is that the conversation was about the FED rule changes for 2012, which is fine. You two had to get into your petty, nonsensical argument and derail the thread off topic like the both of you have done in the past in other threads. PM each other if you want to. You two have an uncanny ability to talk in circles trying to prove to everyone that you're right, when in reality you just turn threads into piles of crap.

The ignore button doesn't tell you what to ignore, it simply lets you ignore other forum members.

Again, I started this topic and if you do not like it do not read the forum. This is not about who is right (and the problem with many here IMO), it is about opinion. I have a right to state why a rule was changed and what our role is in that. If you do not agree, you have a right to state your opinion. Remember this bothers you, I just ignore other conversations when I choose not to participate in those conversations I find silly or trivial. I do it all the time without any internet help. Usually the topic or who is saying something usually has me not read it. You know kind of like you do in real life at a public event. You see someone you do not choose to talk to or someone calls you on the phone and you do not feel like talking, you look and go the other way. See how easy that was?

Peace

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Grow up. You just displayed arrogance while condemning it.

I feel no need to shy from those who misstate the facts or cloud them. If you find it petty and nonsensical to state what the rule book mandates then you should hang up the gear. Finally, this is not an Illinois issue. While we may reside in this state, the rule being discussed is a national standard.

Where did I say the rule book was petty and nonsensical? Quit making things up. I said you two derailing threads is petty and nonsensical. Which rule? The football rules you two are blabbering about?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I find it hard to believe that officials cannot deal with those who challenge their opinions publicly. It must be tough for them on the field without an ignore feature for 'protection'.

Nice red herring. While I don't need the ignore feature on the field, it is nice to have it on here for people like you who love to hear themselves talk. (Or see themselves post)

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, I started this topic and if you do not like it do not read the forum. This is not about who is right (and the problem with many here IMO), it is about opinion. I have a right to state why a rule was changed and what our role is in that. If you do not agree, you have a right to state your opinion. Remember this bothers you, I just ignore other conversations when I choose not to participate in those conversations I find silly or trivial. I do it all the time without any internet help. Usually the topic or who is saying something usually has me not read it. You know kind of like you do in real life at a public event. You see someone you do not choose to talk to or someone calls you on the phone and you do not feel like talking, you look and go the other way. See how easy that was?

Peace

I will say it again since you have a problem with comprehension: The thread started with a discussion about 2012 baseball rule changes and you two turned it into a cesspool like you've done in the past.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Where did I say the rule book was petty and nonsensical? Quit making things up. I said you two derailing threads is petty and nonsensical. Which rule? The football rules you two are blabbering about?

Maybe you missed the rule quote in my first couple posts here. Maybe you missed the part where I told Jeff to not compare baseball and football. Maybe you missed the part where I told Jeff that checking all helmets in baseball has been mandatory for years. Maybe you missed the part where I told Jeff that he was comparing unequal things. If so, then I can see why you believe what I wrote is nonsensical and petty.

[Nice red herring. While I don't need the ignore feature on the field, it is nice to have it on here for people like you who love to hear themselves talk. (Or see themselves post)

I suggest you purchase Linda McMeniman's "From Inquiry to Argument". It will explain what a red herring is (you erred) and improve your debating abilities.

It is hardly improper to state that some officials cannot deal with others criticizing their calls, in a forum dedicated to the profession. I further stated that the person who mentioned its use is not highly regarded here or on other umpire forums. A Google search shows that.

I remind you that this new rule regarding equipment checking is flawed. It has not penalty, other than what exists already. If the NFHS wants to make coaches more responsible they need to include appropriate penalty for not ensuring compliance. Otherwise, get rid of the rule and just play ball - like OBR and NCAA ruled games do.