Pushing/Posting

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

My, My, My rainmaker...how far we have progressed.

Atta girl.

Or is that DIGRESSED.

[canuckref]

I don't see what more you could have done to get the point across. Displacement, pushing, shoving, hands in the back, knee in the leg, elbow in the side...what didn't this coach/player understand? I might suggest he read the rulebook closely after the game.

I strongly disagree with the "no talking" philosophy espoused by some here. I have always found you can manage games better with a few carefully said words versus a stony silence. We need to understand that many coaches do not have a good grasp on the rules. Telling a player the correct rule only makes the game better for him/her and the next game official they have. I like hearing well timed, concise descriptions for players and coaches to explain common violations and fouls from an official...it tells me they give a sh*t, versus the cloistered monk school of silence officiating...this does not help the game.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by canuckref

I strongly disagree with the "no talking" philosophy espoused by some here. I have always found you can manage games better with a few carefully said words versus a stony silence. We need to understand that many coaches do not have a good grasp on the rules. Telling a player the correct rule only makes the game better for him/her and the next game official they have. I like hearing well timed, concise descriptions for players and coaches to explain common violations and fouls from an official...it tells me they give a sh*t, versus the cloistered monk school of silence officiating...this does not help the game.

Dan and I, and Jurassic and I, and others and I have discussed this before, and I don't think they're advocating for a no-talk philosophy. They're saying (to me) don't talk too much. I do have that tendency, and then when I try to correct it, I swing too far the other way and don't talk at all. I'm working on finding the right balance, and that was the aim of my question in the OP. They were saying that I haven't found it yet!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

They're saying (to me) don't talk too much.

Exactly.......

And that's a general rule of thumb also, not an all-encompassing one.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Exactly.......

And that's a general rule of thumb also, not an all-encompassing one.

Except for you. You need to just shut up.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Except for you. You need to just shut up.

Stick a pink basketball in his mouth. He'll be quiet.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Stick a pink basketball in his mouth. He'll be quiet.

Yeahbut then he won't sink to the bottom.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Stick a pink basketball in his mouth. He'll be quiet.

How about a dead rat instead?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-lawsuit_N.htm

[Adam]

Originally Posted by canuckref

I strongly disagree with the "no talking" philosophy espoused by some here. I have always found you can manage games better with a few carefully said words versus a stony silence. We need to understand that many coaches do not have a good grasp on the rules. Telling a player the correct rule only makes the game better for him/her and the next game official they have. I like hearing well timed, concise descriptions for players and coaches to explain common violations and fouls from an official...it tells me they give a sh*t, versus the cloistered monk school of silence officiating...this does not help the game.

I haven't seen one person here espouse a "no talking" officiating philosophy. Not in this thread nor in anywhere else in this forum.
Thus, the second paragraph of your posts is a classic strawman. They burn easily, but generally put out more heat than light.

[canuckref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I haven't seen one person here espouse a "no talking" officiating philosophy. Not in this thread nor in anywhere else in this forum.
Thus, the second paragraph of your posts is a classic strawman. They burn easily, but generally put out more heat than light.

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by canuckref

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

I'm not sure "wrong" is how you read it, but maybe out of context. Dan meant, "Don't keep talking after the initial explanation". But I knew what he meant from other discussions he and I have had, which you may not have been privy to. Also, Dan has been known in the past to overstate his case. Once in a while.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by canuckref

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

You took a very specific comment he made to a specific person with whom he has a long and mutually argumentative history and extrapolated it to some mythical officiating philosophy. Whether it was intentional or not, your argument is a strawman. Specifically, it's a strawman based on a false dichotomy.

Short answer to your final question. Yes.
Long answer to your final question. Yes, because you read too much into it. You need more to go on before determining and judging someone's officiating philosophy.