"Hey Ref, that's five seconds!"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Don’t you think that’s a little like the pot calling the kettle black?

No. I have many conversations here in the context of the conversation. Billy often suggests something totally that was no where in the conversation. No one said a single thing about having to master all rules in this conversation. They simply said to have knowledge of other levels is a good thing and how to have that working knowledge. It is actually a common thing we do here when talking about my posted videos. I even ask questions in the videos about the level that people work and how the rule applies. I do not assume those that are talking about a play in a college game is incapable of understanding a little difference when pointed out to them in if it is not an exact high school example. Since I post most of the videos and I see people discuss differences all the time, it is clear that most people have a working knowledge of rules at other levels they do not currently work.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No. I have many conversations here in the context of the conversation. Billy often suggests something totally that was no where in the conversation. No one said a single thing about having to master all rules in this conversation.

I said that "single thing", "master". Am I a "no one"? The ones who have to master multiple rule sets are those that officiate multiple rule sets, and I'm very much impressed that many Forum members have the ability to do such.

Why should I not be allowed to use the word master before anybody else uses it in reference to those "two rule sets guys"?

I should be able to use any word that I want to use to describe such officials, especially when I'm praising them.

Now if I'm berating Forum members, then I should be censored regarding the types of words that I use, and if I use the wrong word, I should be suspended, or worse.

But when was the last time you saw a post by my me that berated anybody? I'll give you a hint, it was about a Forum member with the initials O and S. I admit it, I lost my patience, and I lost my cool. It was very unlike me, very un-Christian of me. I can't state his Forum name because it's been mentioned twice in the past month, and I don't want to find out what happens if his name is mentioned a third time. That didn't work out very well the movie Beetlejuice.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I said that "single thing", "master". Am I a "no one"? The ones who have to master multiple rule sets are those that officiate multiple rule sets, and I'm very much impressed that many Forum members have the ability to do such.

Why should I not be allowed to use the word master before anybody else uses it in reference to those "two rule sets guys"?

I should be able to use any word that I want to use to describe such officials, especially when I'm praising them.

Now if I'm berating Forum members, then I should be censored regarding the types of words that I use, and if I use the wrong word, I should be suspended, or worse.

But when was the last time you saw a post by my me that berated anybody? I'll give you a hint, it was about a Forum member with the initials O and S. I admit it, I lost my patience, and I lost my cool. It was very unlike me, very un-Christian of me. I can't state his Forum name because it's been mentioned twice in the past month, and I don't want to find out what happens if his name is mentioned a third time. That didn't work out very well the movie Beetlejuice.

You can use whatever word you want to use, but that was not the point of what I said. And again the issue I had was not that you used the word, it was that you attributed that to those that you were discussing this with, in other words misrepresenting the conversation or point of view. Just like the "straw man" point of view that anyone accused you of berating anyone. I just took exception in the conversation (not upset in any way) to the fact you suggested that I or anyone said that you must master rules for levels you do not work. Heck, I have not mastered rules at both levels. Many times there are things that never happen and never are a concern. I just do not make big mistakes because I have seen a lot in my 20 years of officiating to know the variations in the rules and study why there are differences. The rules change so much over the years it takes time to realize the impact of certain situations like when the NCAA went to the Class A and B technical foul classifications.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Heck, I have not mastered rules at both levels.

I certainly don't know you personally, but from your posts, I believe that you're being humble. You seem to have a great knowledge of the rules, especially in regard to incidental contact/illegal contact/advantage/disadvantage, on both the "book" level, and (from your comments with your many helpful videos) on the practical side of things. You've been a clinician in your area (a job that only our top officials hold here in Connecticut), you've worked state finals in more than one sport, you've successfully moved from womens to mens college basketball (I believe Division I), and (I'm not sure of this) made a geographic move and have maintained a challenging (as from your posts) schedule, not something one does lightly without a great resume.

Maybe I should have used the word "proficient" instead of mastered. Mastered implies reaching the pinnacle of success, which can breed laziness, and apathy, in some officials. That's certainly not me, I'm always striving to improve (as a journeyman official, there's always room for improvement), and I don't believe there's a single ounce of laziness, or apathy in your officiating character.