"Honey Bunny"

[Back In The Saddle]

[quote=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Case in point: In one of my Saturday games I had a kid who kept popping off to me. So I got in his grill about it.

Back in the Saddle, . A kid was popping off and you got in his grill. I am left to believe whatever was said did not warrant a T. However, it warranted you to get in his grill as you stated. Clear something up for me here

How close did you get to the kid grill?

Did you maintain a distance between four to seven feet?

Because, I find it unbelieveable that someone of your stature, will take issue with a kid in this manner and get in a kid grill.

The kid popping off at the mouth could have been handle differently then you getting in his face.

Ah yes, the devilish details.

No, what was said was not deserving of a T. But after the second time it happened, early in the game, it appeared that it was going to be a continual problem. In my experience, those kinds of problems only escalate. It is the A in ABS technical foul.

The background: this is one of those meaningless summer tourneys where they don't keep player fouls, they shoot one-for-whatever and we were specifically advised to not give out T's except in very deserving situations because they were unlikely to be effective. So, it being the final day of the tourney, I had little hope that the fear of a T would carry any weight.

Distance: the "getting in the grill" occurred while we were in transition once, and while I was at lead and he was in the key once. Both times at distances of several feet. No physical contact, no proximity that would add an intimidation factor. I was, however, suitably gruff and curt. So perhaps "got in his grill" was overstating the physical nature of the confrontation, but is pretty accurate for the verbal and attitude aspects of it.

Could I have handled it differently? Sure. There are an endless number of ways I could have handled it. Some may be more effective, most would not. Based on the situation (an obvious game disruptor, popping off repeatedly, from early in the game), I chose a method I have had success with in the past. It gets the point across, addresses the offender directly, doesn't punish the team or player, leaves room to escalate in a controlled manner if the behavior doesn't cease. In this case the behavior ceased, and life was good.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This discussion is not about my mother or her opinion. The point I was making was to suggest that there are people that are have studied these things as their living (last time I checked I have not read anyone that studies in the field of Gender and or issues of race).



I also did not just suggest that this was something that people are to be offended by; I said that this is something that suggests a role and a way of conduct based on the use of the word. Usually in the terms of calling a gender a "lady" or a "gentleman" on its own in the context of a basketball game would not be offensive to me personally or anyone I know. But the term is not just about a game.

I also find it funny that this issue cannot be raised, but when it deals with race or challenging other aspects of life (that have been discussed on this board), then that is out of line. Then raising this issue is all about "political correctness" and people just finding ways to be offended. I look at this situation like this. If this is horse manure, so is all the posts, claims and ways people here find ways to be offended. You PM'd me over something that offended you. Why is this situation OK Mark and the use of a term so out of line?

It makes me think that the composition and the background of the people who are not offended have something to do with how you view this issue. I live my life to try to not offend people and not be a stubborn *** to tell others they should not feel that way because I am not personally affected.

Peace

Rut:

If you try not to offend people then you are bowing to the pressure of the political correctness police. With regard to the socialogy academics who "study" these things, my advice to them is to get a life and find a real job. This country has its share of problems, but we do not need to be told that it is insulting to address a person in a civilized manner and treat them with respect.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rut:

If you try not to offend people then you are bowing to the pressure of the political correctness police. With regard to the socialogy academics who "study" these things, my advice to them is to get a life and find a real job. This country has its share of problems, but we do not need to be told that it is insulting to address a person in a civilized manner and treat them with respect.

MTD, Sr.

I do not believe in Political Correctness. I do believe have a right to define what offends them and why. I also feel that it is not my place to tell them why they are offended when terms or comments have nothing to do with me. And if someone says something that is considered offensive, you have to be prepared for the consequences or the reaction. I like to inform people when they might offend someone so that they will not be caught off-guard when someone confronts them or slaps them across the face.

I also find it funny that some here want to talk about this is silly, but if someone says the right thing to them, all hell breaks loose and those comments are "out of line." Do not let someone talk about the war, Iraq or talk about race and all of a sudden the sh!t hits the fan. I told someone to “go back to Iraq” and you would have thought I talked about their Mother in the worst way. I did not see you coming to my defense and claiming that was PC run amok when I make those comments.

I think people pull the PC card when we talk about something that does not offend them. The minute something does offend them, then those comments are out of line. Mark, you are at the forefront of that hypocrisy. You have gone around calling people “scabs” but then not want to pull out the PC card when it relates to this issue. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rut:

If you try not to offend people then you are bowing to the pressure of the political correctness police.

I think this statement is much too generalized. I try not to offend people. I almost never offend someone on purpose. Sometimes it's just a matter of being considerate, rather than being intimidated by what is "supposed" to be correct. But I also try just as hard not to be offended.

If I think that a person is being unreasonably oversensitive, then I may say that we just have to agree to disagree and I'm sorry you're offended. If I knew someone who was genuinely offended at being called a lady, I would not say it around them. But I would also probably try to discuss it with them and convince them that there's no reason to be offended.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

1) I try not to offend people. I almost never offend someone on purpose.

2) If I knew someone who was genuinely offended at being called a lady, I would not say it around them. But I would also probably try to discuss it with them and convince them that there's no reason to be offended.

1) Me too, shortazz.

2) OK.....go ahead and convince me that there's no reason for me to be offended if you called me a "lady".


Sorry, Chuck, but for the life of me, I just can't take this thread seriously.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sorry, Chuck, but for the life of me, I just can't take this thread seriously.

The thread, as a whole, has become pretty silly, I agree. But as wrong as I think it to be offended by "lady", I think it's just as wrong to go too far the other way, as I think Mark did.

[Corndog89]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If you treat everybody the same, you're going to be a pretty ineffective referee. Some players you want to win to your side, because they can solve your problems. Some players you just let do their thing, because they're the journeymen who get the job done. Some players you need to actively "handle," because they're your game disruptors. You've got two coaches, and since no two people are alike, you're going to have to handle them each differently. If you're in a crew of three, you may even need to handle your crew members differently.

Case in point: In one of my Saturday games I had a kid who kept popping off to me. So I got in his grill about it. Then I hear a man in the stands hollering about how I have to handle this kid the same way I'd handle every other kid. Bull****. This kid was my game disruptor and I had to handle him differently or I will not have done my job.
Again, bull****. I'm there to do a job. That job involves making judgements about and exerting influence over others without undue respect to their feelings and sensitivities. Some people are going to be unhappy about what I do, no matter what I do. That goes with the territory. And while I absolutely need to be professional, and part of professionalism is not deliberately seeking to offend, I am under no obligation to watch my every word or walk on eggshells because little Johnny or Joanie (or Johnny/Joanie), or their parents, may choose to take offense at what I say or do. If I am made aware that I have offended somebody, I'll likely apologize. If I think they have a legitimate point, I will probably make a change. If I don't, I won't. In which case they can take their little crusade to change the world to the next potential convert. I don't live my life for them; they sure-as-hell ain't living their life for me.

And on the subject of authority, my authority comes from the fact that I've been hired by somebody with more authority to wear the stripes. Unlike important institutions like governments, my authority doesn't derive from the people I'm refereeing. I do not have to win their popular support. I do not have to pander to their whims. I do not have to be politically correct to win their vote. I have the whistle. I do not need to be liked, but I do have to be respected. And the surest way to lose respect is to try to conform to other people's whims.

And while I'm on a roll here, just let me say one last thing:

Another person's offense, real or pretended, at my words or actions is based on that person's perception that I have not embraced or respected their value system and/or view of the world. But by the same token, they have not embraced or respected my value system and/or view of the world. So while they clamour for my conformance to their value system, they refuse to give me the same courtesy. Political correctness is inherently a one-way street, and those who most demand other's respect seem least willing to give it.

BITS

Great post! I mean that and agree with everything you say...but consider this, you're talking about dealing with behavior, which we have to deal with, while I'm talking about dealing with persons. It's on old axiom of leadership that when behavior is unacceptable, you address/deal with/fix the behavior, you don't judge the person engaged in the behavior. By treating all persons the same, you can focus on addressing behavior.

Is that being PC? I don't think so. I'm not afraid of offending people and therefore walk on eggshells, and I certainly don't try to to make people embrace my values at the expense of theirs...I just consciously try to avoid saying potentially explosive/threatening/offensive things to people that I don't know--i.e., players/coaches/parents/administrators/etc--but that I may have authority over. Do I occasionally offend people despite my precautions? Of course I do, but I deal with it and don't punish myself with angst.

Is this a silly thread as some people have said? Of course a discussion on the merits of the word "ladies" can be beat to death and become silly. But this isn't about just that word. Words mean things, which sounds obvious, but they can and do mean different things to different people. And people often react to different stimuli--in this case words--emotionally and irrationally. Put even sane, rational people in an emotional athletic arena, and you never know how they may react.

A couple years ago I was deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in the Qatar desert. The 'Deid has a very good gym and a good intramural program for the troops deployed there. As such, I officiated the intramural b-ball games while I was there. The 'Deid is not a particularly happy place, though it's not that bad either, but as you can imagine tempers can run short in such an environment. During one of the games I called, one of the players, a medical doctor assigned to the hospital there, was losing control so I told the captain of his team, another doctor, that we needed to work together to keep him from doing anything "stupid". The captain went and talked to the guy...and remember, he's a medical professional...and he went ballistic because I called him "stupid". I never did, but that's not what he heard. His perception of the situation was more real than the actual reality of the situation.

Moral of the story: I should have been more careful in my word choices to avoid such a confrontation. If I deal rationally, logically, carefully with behavior, I can more likely avoid an ugly human response. If I treat every person the same, I can keep the playing field much more level and the focus on the game where it belongs, not on differing values.

Thanks for listening to my long-winded response.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I agree; this thread is getting way too long. I believe in treating all people with respect and civility and that includes addressing male and female athletes as gentlemen and ladies, and I do not give a hoot about what some sociologist thinks.

MTD, Sr.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Corndog89

BITS

Great post! I mean that and agree with everything you say...but consider this, you're talking about dealing with behavior, which we have to deal with, while I'm talking about dealing with persons. It's on old axiom of leadership that when behavior is unacceptable, you address/deal with/fix the behavior, you don't judge the person engaged in the behavior. By treating all persons the same, you can focus on addressing behavior.

Is that being PC? I don't think so. I'm not afraid of offending people and therefore walk on eggshells, and I certainly don't try to to make people embrace my values at the expense of theirs...I just consciously try to avoid saying potentially explosive/threatening/offensive things to people that I don't know--i.e., players/coaches/parents/administrators/etc--but that I may have authority over. Do I occasionally offend people despite my precautions? Of course I do, but I deal with it and don't punish myself with angst.

Is this a silly thread as some people have said? Of course a discussion on the merits of the word "ladies" can be beat to death and become silly. But this isn't about just that word. Words mean things, which sounds obvious, but they can and do mean different things to different people. And people often react to different stimuli--in this case words--emotionally and irrationally. Put even sane, rational people in an emotional athletic arena, and you never know how they may react.

A couple years ago I was deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in the Qatar desert. The 'Deid has a very good gym and a good intramural program for the troops deployed there. As such, I officiated the intramural b-ball games while I was there. The 'Deid is not a particularly happy place, though it's not that bad either, but as you can imagine tempers can run short in such an environment. During one of the games I called, one of the players, a medical doctor assigned to the hospital there, was losing control so I told the captain of his team, another doctor, that we needed to work together to keep him from doing anything "stupid". The captain went and talked to the guy...and remember, he's a medical professional...and he went ballistic because I called him "stupid". I never did, but that's not what he heard. His perception of the situation was more real than the actual reality of the situation.

Moral of the story: I should have been more careful in my word choices to avoid such a confrontation. If I deal rationally, logically, carefully with behavior, I can more likely avoid an ugly human response. If I treat every person the same, I can keep the playing field much more level and the focus on the game where it belongs, not on differing values.

Thanks for listening to my long-winded response.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. After reading this, I think we're pretty well on the same page. However, I will give some more thought to the distinction between behavior and people you talk about. That's probably a distiction that I could be clearer about in my own mind. For my part, I make gut-level decisions about how I'm going to deal with behavior, and try to anticipate what types of behavior I may have to deal with based on my perception of what type of person I am dealing with. Of course, I'm judging "type" of person based on behavior, but I have found the another old axiom to be pretty accurate: By their fruits ye shall know them.

I agree, of course, that each person should be treated equally as far as being treated fairly but firmly, respectfully, cordially, etc. But how to deal with behavior, especially in a situation like a game, is much more of a case-by-case basis. And a significant factor in deciding how to address the behavior is the person. And this is starting to sound rather like the first paragraph all over again

I feel your pain with the "stupid" incident. I think that word has probably bitten most of us at some time In similar situations I try to use the word "unfortunate" or "regrettable" now. Not only does it avoid using the word "stupid" but subtly reinforces there being a negative consequence associated with the behavior.