Hot threads

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by eroe39

I feel like you are getting too personal on this forum. Your telling me that everybody on this board thinks I have no credibility. I am not trying to big time anybody with the info I post.

First, perhaps I could have used better wording about your credibility. I did not mean to say that you have no credibility at all. What I meant was that, in this community, this particular discussion forum, nobody knows you from previous postings, like we know TH, Rut, Bob Jenkins, etc. So on this particular forum, you have no credibility. Nobody here has any reason to accept your comments as anything other than a namedropper who likes to sound important. I'm not saying that's what you are, ok? I'm just saying that the vast majority of us here have no way of knowing that you're not. That's what I mean by saying that you have no credibility on this board.

Second, you can feel whatever you like. That's your prerogative. I'm not intending to make personal attacks. I don't think I ever called you any names. I was merely giving my opinion on the original topic. The original topic was about why things were so heated recently. The fact is that you, crew, and bpf were the catalyst for the heated threads. Your appearance on this board is when they started. You may never have used the term "wannabees", but that sure is how you sound. "Well, that may be a correct call in HS, but if you ever hope to move up, then you better call it my way!"

Additionally, I stand fully behind my comments about advising officials to rule directly contrary to a stated rule or NF interpretation. crew's first post was FULL of incorrect rules application. Not just "opinions", but incorrect application. TH's post listed out those errors and responded with rules quotations. But crew continued to propound those interpretations, and others like them. I think that's wrong, and that's all I said.

You say you are proven right because of one play that Andre Patillo called a foul from lead across the paint that the slot passed on. I still have not seen this play, but you cannot prove an entire case on one play.

True enough, but I've got a whole lot better evidence for my position (the rulebook, plus a D1 official's ruling caught on national TV) than you do ("I don't think I'd call it that way. . .").

But they've got to be confronted when their interpretations are blatently wrong.

My interpretations are blatently wrong to you, but they are my opinions. You have your own interpretations and that's fine. [/b][/quote]

Ok, Eli, this is not directed at you personally, ok? But this philosophy is the biggest load of horse manure in the last 35 years. "It may be right for you, but it's wrong for me". "It may be ethical for you, but it's morally wrong for me". "That may be true for you, but it isn't for me."

Eli, if the rulebook says "A" and someone says "Not A", that's blatently wrong. That's not "opinion"; that's a fact which corresponds to something in the actual world. If the casebook gives a play in which it is stressed that the call in a given situation is a PC foul even though the defender is directly under the basket, but someone says "you should never call a charge under the basket", that's an interpretation which is blatently wrong. He may use it and it may even be to his benefit in some cases to use it; but it's still incorrect.

This is the type of interpretation to which I was referring in my post. As I've mentioned numerous times, this is exactly what crew did in his very first post to this forum. His interpretations were blatently incorrect. In such a case, I believe that it's necessary to correct those posters, so that young officials who are trying so hard to learn the rules and applications will not be confused.

If they follow the advice of these three guys, they will get nowhere fast.

I believe I have helped several people rise in the officiating ranks, including my roomate Tommy Porep who was hired in the CBA last year and is also a DI official and Tony Horton, a.k.a. crew, who refs DI basketball as well.[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm so glad you're not trying to "big time" anyone!!

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 29th, 2001 at 03:38 PM]