a rough night

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

It is not okay to attack another person credibility because you disagree with them. We are suppose to be better than that, we are the ones that are suppose to uphold the integrity. Yet we attack each other like piranhas on fresh meat if someone says something you disagree with.

I certainly can't attack your credibility when I don't know what your credibility is.

And while I've gotten a little snippy with you, I certainly haven't attacked you like a piranha. And if you really think it's a "we" problem, then you can also stop attacking.

So you've expressed your opinion, told why you think that way, and others have disagreed with you and told why they think their way. Are we at the point where we all agree to disagree? That would be fine with me. And probably everybody else on this thread.

But it would still be nice to have some clue as to who you are and what your credibility is. It's just hard to understand where you're coming from, when we don't know where you're coming from.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I certainly can't attack your credibility when I don't know what your credibility is.

Geeze, Woman, he's already told you that he's an assignor and he does college playoff games. How could he possibly have any more credibility than that? The man literally reeks of credibility!

Well, there is the wee, tiny matter of not owning any rule books and not knowing the basic rules, but that shouldn't really bring his credibility into question, should it? Huh? Should it?

JMO obviously....

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

And while I've gotten a little snippy with you, I certainly haven't attacked you like a piranha. And if you really think it's a "we" problem, then you can also stop attacking.

Piranhas attack in groups, it was not meant as a you only attack. I am the nicest gentleness man you will ever meet online, but cross me, and I will strike back, I will strike back!

But it would still be nice to have some clue as to who you are and what your credibility is. It's just hard to understand where you're coming from, when we don't know where you're coming from.

I am here only to learn and debate the rules as I think I understand them. Debate and discussion is good for the old sole that thinks he knows it all, but learns that he really doesn't know much at all. Case in point, what you read and what you interpret you just read can be two different things. I think it was around the 3rd or 4th page, I learned that the calling official has precedence over the call. Rule 2-6 says no official has the authority to set aside or question another officials call. It does not exactly say, calling official has precedence over a call in his/her primary area. For me, this is key because now, I can take my understanding of this rule one step further than I could before, which is a benefit to my overall understanding. Just go to the table and report your call and attempt to move the game on. Don't stand there arguing with your partner over who's right or who's more right. Big key for me. It came at a price too, I mean I had to take a few insults, got sidetracked a little bit nursing some off-topic stuff, but, just like in the game, I kept my focus and I got thru it, and I got what I needed.

Be not too concern as to who I am but what I represent.
Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

Piranhas attack in groups, it was not meant as a you only attack. I am the nicest gentleness man you will ever meet online, but cross me, and I will strike back, I will strike back!


I am here only to learn and debate the rules as I think I understand them. Debate and discussion is good for the old sole that thinks he knows it all, but learns that he really doesn't know much at all. Case in point, what you read and what you interpret you just read can be two different things. I think it was around the 3rd or 4th page, I learned that the calling official has precedence over the call. Rule 2-6 says no official has the authority to set aside or question another officials call. It does not exactly say, calling official has precedence over a call in his/her primary area. For me, this is key because now, I can take my understanding of this rule one step further than I could before, which is a benefit to my overall understanding. Just go to the table and report your call and attempt to move the game on. Don't stand there arguing with your partner over who's right or who's more right. Big key for me. It came at a price too, I mean I had to take a few insults, got sidetracked a little bit nursing some off-topic stuff, but, just like in the game, I kept my focus and I got thru it, and I got what I needed.

Be not too concern as to who I am but what I represent.
Peace

Okay, what do you represent? I'm still not sure. Although I'm impressed that you have changed your tune from the beginning of the thread. Not everyone can do that.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, what do you represent? I'm still not sure. Although I'm impressed that you have changed your tune from the beginning of the thread. Not everyone can do that.

I represent the voice of reason. I represent those voices that are afraid to speak for fear of being wrong. I am too old to be wrong, no, I am too old to care about being wrong. My motto is: you don't have to be perfect to be a good official. You just have to be consistent.

I will leave you with this, a wise man once said, it is best to be consistently bad than to be inconsistent.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

I represent the voice of reason.

Wow. Just wow. It's not easy, but you've left me speechless.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Old School

I represent the voice of reason. I represent those voices that are afraid to speak for fear of being wrong. I am too old to be wrong, no, I am too old to care about being wrong. My motto is: you don't have to be perfect to be a good official. You just have to be consistent.

I will leave you with this, a wise man once said, it is best to be consistently bad than to be inconsistent.

Peace

This guy hasn't changed a bit. Everything he says is pure nonsense. It's of no use whatsoever here. He constantly avoids saying what his experience with officiating is. I'm betting he's never officiated a basketball game in his life. He's only here to cause trouble. What a waste of space.

[Scrapper1]

I will leave you with this, a wise man once said, it is best to be consistently bad than to be inconsistent.

I've got Old School on "ignore", but somebody else quoted this, and I couldn't believe it.

Who said this? What "wise man" would spout such completely inanity? You would rather ALWAYS be bad, than to be MOSTLY very good with a couple of bad moments? Really? That's the stupidest thing I've read in this forum in a long long time. Can we pull this idiot's account?

[mbyron]

My impression is that OS tries to foist these gems on us and to reel in a few by prefacing them with "a wise man once said."

Of course, Old School didn't know that the wise man prefaced his remark with: "Don't ever think that..."

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Who said this? What "wise man" would spout such completely inanity?

What is inanity?

You would rather ALWAYS be bad, than to be MOSTLY very good with a couple of bad moments? Really? That's the stupidest thing I've read in this forum in a long long time. Can we pull this idiot's account?

It was a basketball quote you moron. Relating this to basketball, it is better as an official to be consistently bad then to be inconsistent. In other words, if you consistently call the game the same way, that is, a no-call for a foul on one end is a no-call for a foul on the other end. You are better to officiate the game that way than to call a foul at one end, and not call the same type of foul on the other end.

I figure that quote would go over your heads. Debate me if you choose, ignore me if you must, but don't hate me because I'm good.

Peace