Things that make you go hmmmmm...

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Is this the meeting where Kurt-Whats-his-Name throws out any questions that can only be answered in old FED casebooks rulings he feels don't apply to the state of Illinois?

Kurt doesn't belong to our association.

I may have to defend Kurt-Whats-his-Name a little. He is in charge, at the state level, for boy's basketball. His duties include officiating, but it is not his entire focus. He is also not an official, so it doesn't surprise me that he may have answered Rut's question the way he did. (I mean, after all, how many "real" officials knew the answer?) It did surprise me that he answered it quickly without checking an interpreter, or directly with the Fed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Kurt doesn't belong to our association.

I may have to defend Kurt-Whats-his-Name a little. He is in charge, at the state level, for boy's basketball. His duties include officiating, but it is not his entire focus. He is also not an official, so it doesn't surprise me that he may have answered Rut's question the way he did. (I mean, after all, how many "real" officials knew the answer?) It did surprise me that he answered it quickly without checking an interpreter, or directly with the Fed.

We have no idea why the interpretation was given. I think it is very presumptuous who he talked to or did not talk to. The NF is a phone call away from the IHSA and we have many people that know people in the NF personally. It is not like no one from the IHSA sits currently on the NF Committee or does not attend NF meetings. I think many want people to believe what they want because he came to a conclusion that did not fit their opinion to a tee.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have no idea why the interpretation was given. I think it is very presumptuous who he talked to or did not talk to. The NF is a phone call away from the IHSA and we have many people that know people in the NF personally. It is not like no one from the IHSA sits currently on the NF Committee or does not attend NF meetings. I think many want people to believe what they want because he came to a conclusion that did not fit their opinion to a tee.

Peace

Ok, I'll certainly admit I jumped to a conclusion that he didn't check with anyone regarding the ruling. I was only going by the reasoning Kurt did a quick check of the most recent rule books, and, not finding a specific case, made a decision, just like some of us did on that play. However, since Bob J. found that case ruling, and given that there has been nothing to change that since, I would have to go with that case.

I'm also jumping to the conclusion that if Kurt knew about that case, he would agree.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm also jumping to the conclusion that if Kurt knew about that case, he would agree.

Yes, let's give him the benefit of a doubt and assume that's the case. To know the ruling and go against it would not say much for him.

Z

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Yes, let's give him the benefit of a doubt and assume that's the case. To know the ruling and go against it would not say much for him.

Z

But that's exactly what he did! Here's a post from the other thread that states just that.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I emailed Kurt and gave him all the information, including the 2000-01 Fed interpretation.

His response, in full:

"Thanks for the note. My interpretation is that the correctable error rule is the rule in question and not 4-14-2."

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But that's exactly what he did! Here's a post from the other thread that states just that.

By giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am saying that he is so busy that he just brushed through the questions and answered them hurriedly.

However, he is one of the state's chosen interpreters so you would think that he would make the time to put a little time and effort into responses from officials who seek his input.

He is either making up his own rulings or not taking his job as an interpreter seriously and I am not impressed either way.

Z

[jbduke]

You know, Dan, I'm at a near-total loss; but not so much that I can't respond with some snark of my own: maybe if you'd taken a few more courses that focused on reading and writing, you'd be better practiced in how to respond to arguments that are actually made, rather than simply to knock down strawmen and issuing baseless ad hominems. There's nothing in BITS's posts or mine that even implies that we look down our noses at those who perform very important jobs that don't happen to require higher education.

BITS's arguments were about test-focused education, and how much that can short-change students, whether they be students of officiating, food preparation services, or the applied sciences.

Yours is a relatively new (10 years or so) and extremely noxious strain of elitism, brought into vogue, ironically, by a cadre of philistines who have had every educational opportunity availability in this country. What is ironic about these arguments is that they're so often made by people who have advanced, but not terminal degrees. The argument made by these people is one that looks down on those who think there is more to life than figuring out exactly what you have to do to make money in this world, and scoffing at those who think that there might be more to a well-lived life than simply figuring out how to pass the Series 7 exams. What's interesting is that when you invoke those who occupy lesser-skilled positions in the economy to justify your outlook, you do so not do defend such people (whom you secretly look down on), but to attack those whose world view plays on your own intellectual insecurities.

I work with at-risk students, many-if-not-most of whom will be very fortunate if they can spend productive lives working in restaurants or on garbage routes rather than in prison. They don't have any of the advantages that I, and I suspect you had growing up. So don't you dare think for a minute that I'm unaware of those circumstances or that I would ignore them and think less of those who didn't have them.


You and your ilk are, as a general rule, bright and highly educated (which, on one level, makes your position quite silly). But it makes you feel better about yourselves to look down on those with more formal education than you have or who value a different kind of education from the one you got or value. Your strawman is found in your implicit claim that those who support liberal-arts education and those with PhD's look down on those who don't have them. My experience is that there are jerks in every walk of life, occupying every job possible. There are no more ahole PhDs per capita than ahole engineers; so park that argument in the landfill post haste.