Good start. At least now, after 6 pages of posts, we agree on what is actually up for debate! :)


Ok! This is good, this is an attempt at providing evidence. Now let's go look at the evidence. I asked you to quote passages where somebody stated that rules knowledge was the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official. You haven't bothered to quote anything, so I've done the legwork for you. (If we were still in college, you'd have to pay me big bucks for this ;) )

Here's the thread you're referring to: http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=7540

I went back and looked at all the posts in the thread. I'll quote the passages that come closest to saying what you claim.

Tony also posted a reply but he did not mention rules at all, nor did he comment on whether the original poster had the tools to be an outstanding official. He did mention using good mechanics.

Those are all the replies that are even slightly germaine to our discussion. And just for the record, here's part of the original post.

So here's a few comments. First, notice that the original poster himself admits that he knew the rules and yet was a bad official. So he clearly does NOT think that rule knowledge is all it takes to be an outstanding official.

Second, notice that none of the posts that I've quoted says that he actually is a good official.

DownTownTonyBrown makes that point that he probably wasn't quite as bad as he thought (being too hard on himself), but nobody says that he really is a great official b/c he passed his written test or that he just got screwed by the evaluator.

Blackhawk says "you will be a very good official".

Woolnojg says "you can still be a good official. Experience tells me it takes about 3 years to become a good official."

JR says, "if your mentor thinks that you're gonna make a good ref, then you probably will."

Not one of the posts in that thread says that the official in question is a good official. He's obviously NOT a good official. He just failed his floor test. But b/c he loves the game and seems willing to put in the work to get better, he probably will be a good ref someday.

Notice that not one of the posts says "You already passed the written test, therefore you are clearly an outstanding official." They all say that he needs more work, despite knowing the rules.

So while I genuinely appreciate your effort to present some kind of evidence for your position, it doesn't support your position at all. Nobody actually believes that rule knowledge is the ONLY thing that's necessary to be an outstanding official. And you still have shown nothing to prove otherwise. He knows the rules, yet still needs to do more to be an outstanding official. We all agree with you, Jeff.

Since that is the only real evidence you've offered, and it clearly does not support your position; and since I've stated repeatedly that we all agree with you that rule knowledge is not sufficient to make an outstanding official; will you now admit that you spoke too hastily on this subject, that you were incorrect in your judgment, and that you will no longer make that false claim?

Chuck

Evidence
 

Chuck,

This is not about evidence. I did not really give you any evidence or really try to give you evidence. It is clear to me and my opinion that there are folks here that do not agree with what officiating is about. Not only on this issue but many others. This is not a courtroom and even in a courtroom, what is true and what is false tends to be up for judgement and opinion too. This is no different. Just because someone makes one statement and kind of qualifies it, does not mean that is the only statement they have made. I have been on this board for probably 5 years or so and there has been many things said over that period of time.

BTW, I will continue to say what I feel. Everyone has that right to do that here or any other place. This is a democracy and anyone can hold a view about just about anything. Just do not hold it about the opposition of war. :D

Peace

Well, there's an hour of my life I can't get back. Great-googly-mooogly!

Re: Zebra
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
Your head is so far stuck up your behind.... I am not talking about rules knowledge you idiot.


Again, your choice of words show your maturity and intelligence.


The next words that come out of your mouth might set the tone or take the cover off an already volitle situation.


Dealing with people comes easily and naturally to me. I don't make a big deal out of dealing with a frustrated coach or player because it has never been a problem. You're so worried about being near the bench or a coach or player "giving you a black eye." I've never even seen anything that comes close to approaching a situation like that. Are you officiating at your local penitentiary? :-)


And if you are spending most of that time trying to convince what 4-7-2b is, then you might find yourself on the other end of a black eye.


Yeah, there's something that worries me. I've never let a game get anywhere near that out of control. What size boxing gloves do you wear when you ref? :-)


Trust me, conflict resolution has very little to do with what a test will teach you.


Trust you? The guy who makes wild claims with no basis and can not produce any evidence that anyone ever said what you claim they did? Yeah, that'll happen.

And when I read many posts, I here guys debating over rules and phrases like the sky is falling.


Another wild claim. The only person I see here acting like the sky is falling is you. Like I said, handling players and coaches is a snap for me. I've never had a problem with that.... and I've never seen a huge issue with any varsity officials on that around here. However, I have seen a couple of games ordered resumed by the state due to incorrect rule interpretations. Once it was because the officials went with the AP arrow to start the overtime rather than a jump ball. I will continue to use this wonderful board to increase my rule knowledge in hopes that I never blow a rule and embarrass myself and my partner.

Z

HI freinds
i don't really understand why you are fighting all the time there are a biggers problem in our world.belive me.MAKE LOVE NOT WAR!..
http://www.condom.co.il/links.asp?id=269

From the NF 2002-03 Rules Book page 8 - "The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules"....

"A player or a team should not permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

Rut - what book have you been (or have not been) reading?

At the end of the day, it all sums up with....

"We all wake up in the morning, put our clothes on and go to work.... and basketball is just a GAME"

Re: Evidence
 

Really? I could've sworn that you were trying to give me evidence. Because in your previous post, from which I quoted, you wrote this toward the end:

So at that time, you clearly thought you were giving proof, since you ask if it's "proof enough". Proving something generally requires some sort of evidence. But when I demonstrate that your evidence doesn't prove anything at all, suddenly "this is not about evidence"? That's pretty slippery. Are you practicing for elective office? ;)

Yes, but the facts themselves do not depend on that judgment. You can make a judgment that there are people posting on this board who believe that rule knowledge is the ONLY thing necessary for being an outstanding official. But that judgment would be incorrect. It's still false, and doesn't become true magically just b/c it's your judgment.

Then, please, by all means, show me one. Show me one single post that anyone has made that indicates that he or she believes what you claim. Just one. That's all I've been asking. But somehow, in 8 pages of posts, you haven't been able to come up with one, have you? I wonder why that is. Because there aren't any to find. Admit it. Please.

Everyone has the right to say what they feel? What a novel concept. Then why did you previously tell me:

In any case, as I said already, I would not tell you that you can't say something. Although, I do wish you would stop making this false claim unless you can substantiate it somehow. You can substantiate it, right? I mean, you're not the mindless kind of person who holds beliefs for no reason at all, are you?

Chuck

Yes, but "advantage" and "disadvantage" do not appear together with a slash between them with no spaces, as in "advantage/disadvantage".

Good thing we're not talking about "holding" vs. "grabbing". :D

Chuck

To Chuck.
 

At the end of the day, who cares. I stand by my original statement. I do not need to prove anything to have an opinion, which you are your hommies love to give me time and time again.

Peace

i think that the record has broken in this long thread...
good job ,fox.

Re: To Chuck.
 

What's a "hommie"? Is that anything like a "homey"? Or is it a stay-at-home mom? ;)

Re: To Chuck.
 

My opinion is that at the end of the day, you should care. If you don't care that you hold false beliefs, if you don't care that you are perpetrating falsehoods against your brother officials, if you don't care that you have no support whatsoever for your own beliefs, then I think that's sad, personally. I would always prefer to hold true beliefs than to hold false ones. And I would be ashamed to spread falsehoods about other officials, when it's been made clear to me that my comments are false. I would be an intellectual fraud if I refused to acknowledge an obvious error in my belief system. Those are things that I care deeply about. I think those say something about me as a person, not merely as an official. I would think that you ought to care about them too. But that's just my opinion.

Your original statement is utterly false. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing it. Every time you state it, you are knowingly spreading that falsehood. What does that say about you?

Very true. If, however, you could provide any evidence whatsoever for your belief, you might actually have some credibility on these discussion boards. Furthermore, if you were simply to say that you were mistaken and stop repeating your "opinion" on this topic, your credibility and the respect for you among other posters here would skyrocket.

Chuck

Re: Re: To Chuck.
 

My opinion is that at the end of the day, you should care. If you don't care that you hold false beliefs, if you don't care that you are perpetrating falsehoods against your brother officials, if you don't care that you have no support whatsoever for your own beliefs, then I think that's sad, personally. I would always prefer to hold true beliefs than to hold false ones. And I would be ashamed to spread falsehoods about other officials, when it's been made clear to me that my comments are false. I would be an intellectual fraud if I refused to acknowledge an obvious error in my belief system. Those are things that I care deeply about. I think those say something about me as a person, not merely as an official. I would think that you ought to care about them too. But that's just my opinion.[/b][/quote]

This would be all true if I considered it false. I will be waiting for your sticking up for other things that anyone considers false. For one, you and your hommies say all kinds of false things about me personally. They claim all kinds of things about me and spread them constantly. I am the target and I do not care. Because what someone thinks on this board is not going to hold me back for anything. So I guess it just depends on what keeps up up at night.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk.../moresleep.gif


That would be wonderful if I was seeking respect and credibility among officials on this board. We can all run our mouths about what we do or what we have done, but the reality is what people witness when we are on the floor or in "real life." But then again maybe to some that uses alias names and hiding true identities is a place I need to worry about credibility. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk.../notworthy.gif But then again Chuck, this is your world I am just living in it. :rolleyes:

Peace

Re: Re: Re: To Chuck.
 

First, everything I said is true, whether you consider your claim to be false or not. Notice that all my statements of fact were made about me, personally. I would rather have true beliefs than false ones. I would be an intellectual fraud, etc. Those are statements of fact, they are about me and are true regardless of whatever world view you hold. The only statements that I made about you were clearly predicated by saying that they were opinions on my part: "I would think that you would care about it too."

Second, your claim -- as I think I have shown by now -- is completely false, whether you consider it to be so or not. The fact you believe something to be true does not make it so (regardless of what William James says). You can believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean it is. And the fact that you believe that there are some people posting on this board who think that rule knowledge is the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official does not imply that there are people who believe that. Quite to the contrary, your utter failure to produce even one sentence to support your claim tends to show that your belief is false; as everyone (including yourself, I'm starting to think) knows.

You'll have to keep waiting, I guess. I don't stick up for things that people think are false. I stick up for things that I know to be true. I have no idea what you mean by that comment.

First, I don't have hommies or homeys or whatever. Second, I have never knowingly said any false thing about you. When I make a comment about you, it's either something that you've told me, or I preface it by saying that I could be wrong about it. So whatever your complaint is, it's not on me.


Show me an example and I will be on your side, Jeff. Nobody should be saying untrue things intentionally about other officials. If people are doing this, I will most definitely do what I can to correct any misrepresentations. Just point them out to me. Just as you shouldn't be the target of false statements, however, neither should you continue to make your current false statement about others.


Sadly, this is the answer I expected. And this answer is exactly why you have neither respect nor credibility among the greater part of officials who post here, I'm sorry to say.

Once again, this has nothing to do with anything at all and is not even true. I'll roll my eyes, too, for solidarity :rolleyes: :D

Let me turn this whole thing around for a second and ask you a question. What would it take to convince you that nobody actually believes that rule knowledge is all it takes to be an outstanding official? You've been claiming all along that there are people who believe that. So what would convince you that they don't? What could we do here to prove ourselves to you, since you can't prove yourself to me? I'm not saying necessarily that I'd do it; I'm just curious what it would take to convince you that you'd actually made an error in judgment.

Chuck

You know what everybody thinks?
 

Chuck,

I am glad you have claimed that you <b>know</b> what everyone that is an official thinks. I am glad you have had conversations with officials here and outside here and have come to a conclusion that we all should and do think alike.

You seemed to know more about this issue than anyone else.

Peace

This thread is kinda like the jug of sour milk. We know it was sour days ago, so why do we all keep sticking our noses up to smell it again. Has any new ground been broken in the last couple of pages. If so, it escapes me. Does one side think the other will eventually surrender, or is this merely a battle of wills where neither is willing to give up the last word. By page 14 will the posts read: Oh, yeah? Yeah! Shall we take a vote of whose side we are on? Tune in again (hit refresh) to find the answers to these, but probably no other questions.

Re: You know what everybody thinks?
 

This all started when you made this statement.

You accuse Chuck of knowing what people think, yet you made this very statement.

You're completely clueless. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/togo.gif

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/argue.gif

Did we ever get any answers to this question?

You'll NEVER get answers. Only opinions.

As somone who received a 100% on his test i can assure you that it alone does not make me a good ref. However knowledge of the rules surely gives one the confidence to begin to become a good ref. Over this year i have woorked with many "senior" off. who have helped me a lot. I feel by watching them and learning from them in terms of game management people skills etc i am on my way to becoming a good ref.

Common sense would dictate that it takes many different skills to be good but a full understanding of the rules most be the base we build on.

Re: You know what everybody thinks?
 

Jeff, we've been down this road, and I admitted that you were correct on this point. I cannot know what everybody actually thinks. I can only know what they've written here on the board. So I've been saying that nobody has ever seriously said (whether they believe it or not) that good rule knowledge is the only thing necessary to make a good official. So my request was that you quote a post where somebody seriously stated that position. You have not done that.

Additionally, as Tony pointed out, you were the one who originally made a statement about what people think.

All I want to know is how you know that? That's all I've been asking in this thread. And you refuse to answer, b/c you don't know it at all. You only say it b/c it somehow makes you look good. Even tho, as I've said repeatedly, it's obviously false. You should have the courage and the maturity to admit that you spoke too quickly and you were in error. But for some reason, you refuse to do that as well.

Chuck

I DECLARE SHENANIGANS !!!!

All I can say to that is:

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk.../rolleyes2.gif

Well Chuck.
 

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on one had tell me that everything I said was completely false (one statement by the way) and say you do not know what everyone is thinking at the same time. What I said is based on an opinion. Opinions are shaded by an individuals preception of statements and events. Look at our political system and how people view based on the same events.

I will expect the next time someone gives and opinion that you disagree with, you will follow them around for 8 plus pages to get them to prove their point. And what is so funny is that I did not name names or point out anyone specifically. But those that seemed to think I am talking about them show how offended this makes them for me to make a claim about them (which I did not do about them personally). It is easy to say in this forum now that no one believes that. But when no one is looking or paying attention we will see what comes off the computer screen.

Peace

Post numbers!!!
 

I see Chuck, this is a conspiracy to our post numbers up. I do not think we are going to catch Mick or Tony anytime soon.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/hump.gif

Re: Well Chuck.
 

I know that, Jeff. I have already admitted three times that I spoke incorrectly. You are right about that, ok? I can admit when I make a mistake. I should not have claimed to know what people think. Instead, I am claiming that no one has ever posted anything on this discussion board that seriously states that rule knowledge is all one needs to be an outstanding official. So now instead of telling me what I already know (that I made an error), tell me something that I don't know; like how you can possibly know that there are people on this board who believe that rule knowledge is the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official?

No, it wasn't. What you said was a statement of fact. It has nothing whatsoever to do with opinion. I've already made this crystal clear to you on more than one occasion, but you ignore it. You said that there are people on this board who believe "x". Now, either there are such people or there aren't. And your "opinion" about it is irrelevant. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn't, and your opinion about it is irrelevant.

But, let's suppose just for a second that your statement really was an opinion (like "Gray officiating shirts look better than striped officiating shirts"). Maybe you could at least tell me how you formed that opinion. Maybe you could point out which comments on this board led to the evolution of that opinion. That's all I'm asking. That's all I've ever asked. Care to share?

Chuck

Back to the original post. . .
 

I just want to point out something about the original post in this thread. After reading the article about Violet Palmer, and the superior "people skills" of women in general, the IHSAA decided to use only female officials for all their Illinois state-sanctioned postseason games, including the boys' games. So I wanted to congratulate all the female officials who are working the Illinois post-season this year. Way to go, ladies!!

Chuck

Re: Back to the original post. . .
 

Oh boy! This is going to get real interesting.

Re: Back to the original post. . .
 

If I'd only known that I was creating a 10 page monster. I'd have thunk twice about the topic.
About the above statement by Chuck; it's about time

I feel bad for Jeff and for Bob Jenkins, b/c they won't be able to get post-season games, but it's great to see that Illinois will be using all-female crews for the entire playoffs. I was glad to see that announcement; it's a great first step.

Chuck

Re: Back to the original post. . .
 

I have a problem with this if I understand it correctly.
Illinois is using exclusively female officials for postseason because of their superior people skills? In the first place I see that as a dangerous generalization. In the second place people skills are only one piece of the puzzle. How big a piece is debatable.

Re: Re: Back to the original post. . .
 

You understand it correctly. It's absolutely true!

Here's Hootie!!!
 

Are the members of the Augusta Country Club going to picket the Illinois tournaments??? Or is this another politically-correct, get-even schtick against the evil white male referees??? This could be a pandora's box, next year it'll be the wheel-chair reffing, followed by gay-and-lesbian reffing, followed by ex-democrat legislators reffing. And then what other kind of minority gets their shot??? This is a joke...right Chuck??? If Montana did something like that, there wouldn't be enough trees in this state to make the paper for all the resignations from the MOA.

[Edited by theshortbaldref on Mar 2nd, 2003 at 07:43 PM]

Re: Back to the original post. . .
 

What is the IHSAA?

Peace