People Skills...

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by tharbert
-Being able to defuse an emotionally charged situation. This is not a strong male trait, it's something we have to develop

** See thread with Violet Palmer article

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
No offense, Jeff, but you're not "just telling the truth".

Very graciuously pit, Chuck.

Seems like I've heard it before, although, the person who wrote it was not so tactful.

I'll have to work on that.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[]Were you the "wedgier" or the "wedgiee",Rocky?

Oh, I'd have to say I have been both...but since I have experienced it from both sides, I can feel empathy towards both the "giver" and the "getter", thus enhancing my people skills...plus, not to brag or anything, but I did score a perfect 100% on the State Wedgie Test last season...so I know the rules and have good Wedgie People Skills...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Oh, I'd have to say I have been both...but since I have experienced it from both sides, I can feel empathy towards both the "giver" and the "getter", thus enhancing my people skills...plus, not to brag or anything, but I did score a perfect 100% on the State Wedgie Test last season...so I know the rules and have good Wedgie People Skills...

That makes more sense to me than some of the other responses on this thread.

[ronald]

JRutledge,

Since you gave a reason for using black in capital letters and white in small, I am wondering if there is a reason along the same lines for continually mispelling words that have the vowels e and i after the consonant c.

[devdog69]

You guys are stooping. Don't be dragged down to that level.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by devdog69
You guys are stooping. Don't be dragged down to that level.

Not "guys" plural,Dev. I agree with the rest of it,though,if you're referring to race.Chuck-et al-who have differed so far haven't referred to anything but their simple disagreement with Rut's premises.Race should never enter in.

[ronald]

Devdog,

I was being serious.

J. Referee,

Rut makes some valid points about how your people skills, attitude and personality affect your officiating career and other aspects of one's life. There is no denying that but at the sametime he fails to perceive how his groupthink affects his perception on the board and I imagine others he encounters in life.

He made a generalization on his post and was called on it by Chuck in reasoned and logical manner. And what was Rut's sampling group that he used to make that hasty generalization. I believe he called someone to task on another thread when that individual used hyperbole to make a point and he wanted to know where he got that information. The poster was using exaggeration at that moment and that seem to be misunderstood.

As mostly a reader (and who may be wrong in this case but my perception), who generally brings race into the discussions?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

No offense, Jeff, but you're not "just telling the truth". You repeat this falsehood as a straw man argument to boost your position that rules knowledge is a secondary skill for outstanding officials. Nobody, nobody, nobody on this board believes that a rules test is the sole indicator of one's worth as an official. I defy you, I dare you -- I triple-dog dare you -- to find one single post where anyone has seriously stated that knowing the rules is the only requisite for being an outstanding official.

Without dodging the issue, if you can repost one single post where this is said, I will take your side and openly mock anyone who puts any credence in rules knowledge.

But you can't do it. Because not one single person really believes what you keep saying they believe. So please get off it.

Chuck

Stop drinking all that caffine.

For the last month or so, there was a discussion that started on the "other" board and was continued on this board over one rule. There was a debate over one rule and the semantics over who had a duty and who did not. The discussion got so heated and personal, that individuals tried to get me to "point out" people that were not teaching NF Rules properly. It got to the point when individuals in this series of conversations tried to get me to point out people so they could run back to their representatives over the debate over this one rule (Actually not a rule but a Section). Now maybe you have not been paying attention, but that discussion alone was riddled with critical comments about "not talking about rules questions" and "sticking to presence posts." And most of the critisizm came from a discussion I believe before the season about they "presence vs. rules knowledge" debate we had, that for me was not an issue with me, but really one statement I made about a personal choice in picking officials. I do not know where you have been, but it seems like when anyone on this board tries to disagree with me, they drag out one of these issues and try to put an opinion on me that I never took. But that is what people do here. And if out of that you got offended, I really do not see why. We are giving opinions here. I personally do not care what anyone's opinion is, because it is just that, an opinion. Unless you live in my state or work for the same assignors and schools that I do, you will have to find your own way in determining what is best for you.

I personally feel that this part of officiating is overlooked and underrated by many here and many out there. This is just one man's opinion. I am not Jesus, Budda or Muhammad, so what I say is only going to hold so much weight in the bigger picture.

Peace

[zebraman]

Rut,

I find it ironic that you have anything to add to a post entitled "people skills."

Based on the lengths of your posts, 'me thinkus' that you are perhaps the one hopped up on caffeine (although your posts often suggest something stronger).

You can't play the "poor picked on me" card now that someone called you on what you said.... you bring this on yourself. It's like dealing with a little kid when you tell them that did something wrong. "Well I saw Johnny do it once." I lurk on the "other board" and it seems that any post that deteriorates into garbage has the common denominator of you.

You lied (again) to support your position and got called on it. Nobody on either board ever said that rules was the only important thing. If you truly "don't care", let the presence vs. rules thing go and move on. That horse was dead, beaten, buried, and composted long ago (except to you).

Z

[JRutledge]

Why are you so afraid of race? Are you afraid to reveal you prejudices and real attitudes?

If I am not mistaken, the article (which this post was about) included here race, gender and hairstyle (ethnic hairstyle) as issues related to here officiating. If that is something that you are afraid of, then be critical of the folks that produced the profile on this official. Part of the profile is to illustrate who she is and what she is not. They did not go out and interview Danny Crawford and talk about his abilities as an official. I also find it interesting that they pointed out these things about her and comments made about her in the wake of Dee Kantner being fired.

Because I am African-American, these issues I face everytime I step out onto a court. This week I will work on a couple all-Black crews (not by design) and this has already come up with the individuals working the games and the individuals that are not. I do not know about you, but if I was to have a personal conversation with Violet Palmer, I can guarantee that the conversation would probably be a lot different (as it is with other Black officials) than the conversation you would have with her. At the end of the day, I do not expect you to understand.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Stop drinking all that caffine.

You're dodging, Jeff. Find me one single post where anybody said that only rules knowledge is important in officiating, and I'll take your side. It's a triple-dog dare, after all.

Chuck

[JRutledge]

Well, such is life. I do not care about being picked on. And if I am the only one that has not "let this die" (in your words), let us see in the next couple days when another issue comes up. We will see the comments that are made and not made. And when it does, I do not expect you to say, "let it die" to them. But then again, I stand by my statement. You are a big boy, you can read. This is not a court of law.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


You're dodging, Jeff. Find me one single post where anybody said that only rules knowledge is important in officiating, and I'll take your side. It's a triple-dog dare, after all.

Chuck

I am going to assume the best of you, I assume that you can read. I am assuming that if you want an answer, you can look it up. There is a search engine here.

Why are you so offended by what I said? If you think it is not true, why are you so focused on it?

Peace

[ChuckElias]

You're still dodging. All I asked was for you to provide one small shred of evidence for your claim and you refuse to do so. Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions.

Originally posted by JRutledge
Why are you so offended by what I said?

First of all, I'm not offended. I think people in our current culture take offense way too easily. It takes a lot to offend me.

If you think it is not true, why are you so focused on it?

Because frankly I'm tired of reading it. You keep spouting it, despite the fact that it is obviously false, in order to make yourself look good. You use it as a premise for some misguided syllogism that is supposed to produce the conclusion that Tony (or whoever you're talking about at the time) doesn't know what it takes to be a good official. But the premise is false and the conclusion doesn't follow and I'm just sick of hearing you say the same stupid, false thing over and over. NOBODY ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT RULES KNOWLEDGE IS ALL YOU NEED TO BE A GOOD OFFICIAL!!! Ok? Can you accept that?

Now, if -- on the other hand -- you can prove me wrong by producing one single solitary post that seriously states that a good test score makes an outstanding official, then I will shut up and you can make your claim forever and I will never mention it again.

But if you can't do that (and you can't, b/c it isn't there), then SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY, would you, please? It's so tiresome.

Chuck