Help

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Thirty years of playing rec ball and watching basketball doesn't make you an expert on matters of officiating.

Worked with a varsity assistant coach a while back. Since he was blowing my line & calling across the paint, I asked:
1. If he has a book.
2. If he planned on attending a camp or taking the test.

He said he played ball all his life plus he coaches, so "he's good to go."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Worked with a varsity assistant coach a while back. Since he was blowing my line & calling across the paint, I asked:
1. If he has a book.
2. If he planned on attending a camp or taking the test.

He said he played ball all his life plus he coaches, so "he's good to go."

And the worst part is, now he gets to add, "I ref too," when acting like an idiot during the game.

[tref]

I hope I'm around when he does...

[APG]

Originally Posted by tref

Worked with a varsity assistant coach a while back. Since he was blowing my line & calling across the paint, I asked:
1. If he has a book.
2. If he planned on attending a camp or taking the test.

He said he played ball all his life plus he coaches, so "he's good to go."

Got to love it...

Now I'm not going to act like knowing the game can't help one be a better official then say...someone who has no idea about the game. There's a reason I would never officiate volleyball (insert joke here), because I have no idea what a lift looks like. As long as you don't catch the ball, I'd be play on to me...and I'd be wrong probably 80 percent of the time.

But on the other hand, I'm also not going to claim indoctrination when nearly everyone has told me something is an absolute, and I don't agree with it.

"Yeah, but!"

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I can certainly see how this is frustrating...to me, it's just like the "yeah but" official who doesn't take advice from officials that have been doing this a lot longer then they have....especially on a rule that is crystal clear. I can't for the mind of me understand how someone in their second year of officiating can try and debate this much on matters such as philosophy, mechanics, and rules. Thirty years of playing rec ball and watching basketball just doesn't cut it. It literally took me three and half years of being here before I started feeling confident in helping others with rules, philosophy, etc, and even then, I'm real careful in what I type.

APG: Maybe you are familiar with high school or college Policy Debate (or Public Forum) competitions. A new, real-world mock resolution is chosen every year. Teams go head-to-head with one another--half the time affirming the resolution, the other half negating it--round after round, tournament after tournament. As the year(s) progress(es), one powerful learning achievement for many is learning to avoid emotional attachment to particular points of view, so that you can accept/adopt and adapt to new points of view submitted by others, without frustration. Both sides enter each round as though they posses full conviction in their respective positions, which serves to maximize what each learns from the other, in the end. That's my approach, here. Many of you have a different attitude, and then make the mistake of ascribing to me that same attitude. I more just kind of shake the tree to see what falls out, you know?

Originally Posted by mbyron

Because words have meanings.

So, you, mbyron, must become frustrated whenever another disagrees with you about the meaning of words? That's a lot of potential frustration for you, especially considering the Federation felt it necessary to crack down on officials, collectively, for what the Federation views as substantial misinterpretation of the rules as written.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's about explaining the basics of what makes a competent official above the middle school or rec league level.

If he wants to just guess at what contact is a foul or not, fine. If he wants to move up, then it might better serve him to actually figure out the logic and reasoning behind the decisions.

Snaq, you, yourself, have pointed out before how competent officials, when shown the same video clip, disagree about rules application regarding it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I should have known when he offered the fan/coach/player catechism, "a foul is a foul."

Anything else is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? "Some fouls are fouls"? "A foul is sometimes a foul"? How would you distinguish between "A foul is a foul," and Jurassic's position that a rule should NEVER be waived?

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

APG: Maybe you are familiar with high school or college Policy Debate (or Public Forum) competitions. A new, real-world mock resolution is chosen every year. Teams go head-to-head with one another--half the time affirming the resolution, the other half negating it--round after round, tournament after tournament. As the year(s) progress(es), one powerful learning achievement for many is learning to avoid emotional attachment to particular points of view, so that you can accept/adopt and adapt to new points of view submitted by others, without frustration. Both sides enter each round as though they posses full conviction in their respective positions, which serves to maximize what each learns from the other, in the end. That's my approach, here. Many of you have a different attitude, and then make the mistake of ascribing to me that same attitude. I more just kind of shake the tree to see what falls out, you know?

That may work in the formal debate contest/competition, but in the officiating world being the "yabut" guy won't help your progression at all. You'll just be seen as the guy who isn't open to being helped and being argumentative for argument's sake.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That may work in the formal debate contest/competition, but in the officiating world being the "yabut" guy won't help your progression at all. You'll just be seen as the guy who isn't open to being helped and being argumentative for argument's sake.

You must have read this month's REFEREE.

If not, it has a discussion about how to receive constructive criticism and what to do if you disagree. Repetitive, "Yabuts" ain't it if you want to get ahead!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That may work in the formal debate contest/competition, but in the officiating world being the "yabut" guy won't help your progression at all. You'll just be seen as the guy who isn't open to being helped and being argumentative for argument's sake.

I'd hate to have to sit through an association meeting or rules clinic with this joker.

Would love to see him in a camp setting trying to show off how much more intelligent he is than the supervisor or clinicians....LOL

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

You'll just be seen as the guy who isn't open to being helped and being argumentative for argument's sake.

Also known as the career Jr High official.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Also known as the career Jr High official.

Or, as we like to call him, "Randy."

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Or, as we like to call him, "Randy."

I believe we've just coined a new term. Baseball has "Smitty" courtesy of Carl Childress and now Snaques has given us "Randy".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I believe we've just coined a new term. Baseball has "Smitty" courtesy of Carl Childress and now Snaques has given us "Randy".

1. I could go with that. "I worked with Randy last night. Just for kicks, I let him do the pregame captains' meeting."

2. Shut up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Anything else is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? "Some fouls are fouls"? "A foul is sometimes a foul"? How would you distinguish between "A foul is a foul," and Jurassic's position that a rule should NEVER be waived?

It's a truism, and thus meaningless for actual discussion. It's also coachspeak, and thus a glaring sign that the speaker is not an official.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Anything else is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? "Some fouls are fouls"? "A foul is sometimes a foul"? How would you distinguish between "A foul is a foul," and Jurassic's position that a rule should NEVER be waived?

What does this even mean? A foul is always a foul because we've deemed said contact to be illegal. All contact however isn't a foul and that judgement is what separates officials. JR's position that a rule shouldn't be waived doesn't necessarily contradict with the position that a foul is a foul and that all contact isn't illegal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

...
So, you, mbyron, must become frustrated whenever another disagrees with you about the meaning of words? That's a lot of potential frustration for you, especially considering the Federation felt it necessary to crack down on officials, collectively, for what the Federation views as substantial misinterpretation of the rules as written...

Further strengthens my stance that this clown is only here b/c he disagreed with the intrepretation of a ruling in a game his team lost.