People Skills...

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


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?

If you think that I am totally false and misguided, then why did you give a name? Did I give a name? Did I finger anyone specifically? I think you are just trying to defend something and you do not even know what you are defending.

And are you speaking for every single poster on this board and their views on this issue? You know specifically what everyone is thinking? You know what everyone is saying? You have read ever single post I have ever produced? You da man!!!

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

If you do not like what I have to say, do not read the post. I do not recall that I used your name or anyone's name to make any point. You did, which suggests some kind of guilt on your part. Many things on this board and in the world are tiresome, so you will just have to deal with it.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
If you think that I am totally false and misguided, then why did you give a name?

Are you seriously asking why I might think of Tony when I think of you and this topic? Maybe b/c, oh I don't know, Tony's always the one who takes you to task for making this stupid claim. Would you even think of denying that Tony is the person that you most often clash with, particularly on this topic? I think you were the one whose tagline once read "Tony called me a liar. Should I be scurred now?" That's why I gave a name. Seem reasonable?

And are you speaking for every single poster on this board and their views on this issue? You know specifically what everyone is thinking?

You know what, Jeff? That's a great point and you're absolutely right. I think I overstated my case. I said that nobody actually believes that, and the fact is there's no way I could actually know that. Point taken. I will, therefore, amend my position to state that no one has ever stated in a post that he or she believes that rules knowledge is the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official. Maybe somebody believes it, but no one has ever stated it publicly on this forum. And once again, I triple-dog dare you to find one post that shows otherwise.

If you do not like what I have to say, do not read the post.

The fact is, Jeff, that once in a while I find your posts very insightful. You have, on occasion, made excellent points. That's why I read your posts. I'm always hopeful that I'll find one of those insightful comments. Additionally, you and I have corresponded via email in the past, and while I disagreed with you on that issue, I felt we had a reasonable and worthwhile conversation.

However, just as often, your posts are filled with irrelevant tangents or outright falsehoods. So I read your post with the hope of finding some insight, and instead I find this mindless re-assertion that somebody's missing the boat b/c they ONLY care about a test score. You might as well just type "Polly want a cracker", b/c the same amount of thought is behind both comments.

I do not recall that I used your name or anyone's name to make any point. You did, which suggests some kind of guilt on your part.

Uh, how exactly does it suggest some kind of guilt on my part? How could using Tony's name in my post mean that I am guilty of something? And what is it that you think I might be guilty of? This comment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything I'm trying to discuss (which is really only one thing).

Once again, I triple-dog dare you to produce one single solitary post that supports your claim that somebody, anybody, thinks that rules knowledge is the only thing necessary for being a great official. Prove me wrong. If you refuse, then have the courage to admit that you are the one who is wrong.

Chuck

[JRutledge]

My position has been that test of any kind do not prove rules knowledge or officiating ability in any way. I think that to the general public (coaches, players, fans), we are judged by the way we carry ourselves and our skills in dealing with coaches and players directly. If we lose our cool, then no matter how well we got a call right, we will be previeved as bad officials. Now I used the words "presence" and every other disagreement someone has with me, they throw out that word, time and time again. I was refering mainly to my personal experience and if I had to choose an official, I would not take someone that just got a 99 on their NF test and want to work with them. I want to work with officials that had some "court presence" and could handle themseleves under pressure better. Mainly because in my mind, the guy that got the 99, might crack under pressure and not make competent decisions when they are under the gun. No different than someone that has a vast vocabulary not being able to stand in front of people and give a riveting speech. Now this was the position I took then and I stand by now and there were many here that disagreed admittely. And folks like Tony that live in places that decides their fate for the year based on a written test, he is one of many that took issue with my words. And he was not standing alone.

Now having said all that, this is my position. I think that dealing with people is what makes or breaks us. Because even the slightest rule mistake might not be noticed by the masses. And what is previeved as a rules mistake by many, is their missunderstanding of what the rules actually are (Over the back, moving screens for example). And if many of us called the game strictly as the written word says, we might find ourselves watching instead of officiating. No matter what the NF claims or says. I have not seen anyone call the interrupted dribble, 3 second rule violation yet this year. I wonder why that is?

Now if it makes you and others feel good about yourself debating with me on my personal point of view and claiming everything I say as "Rut's Rules," well more power to ya. But this is something that I value and does not have to be agreed by everyone. Chuck, if you cannot find evidence about this idea that you claim I am making, stick around for awhile, you will see it come out. I will leave the rest up to you to decide what the opposition is saying. Then I will be waiting for you to tell them to "let it rest." I will not be holding my breathe anytime soon.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
You might as well just type "Polly want a cracker", b/c the same amount of thought is behind both comments.

LOL! And true.

Z

[ronald]

Rut

Your questions to me are guilty of the fallacy of the complex question. So when you figure out which one you want me to answer, then I'll be glad to answer that one.

And do not accuse people of things especially when they make no reference to whatever you come back and accuse them of having committed. I have never been one to parse words or try to tergiversate.

[ChuckElias]

Jeff, I'm all for putting it to bed. Following are two quotes from your first two posts in this thread:

we have people on this board that think your test score is the determiner of what officiating is all about.

take it up with the people that only talk in terms of being a "test" master to prove your worth as an official.

All it will take to put this to bed is for you to show any evidence whatsoever that either of the above statements is true. One post, one sentence, that supports those ludicrous claims will be sufficient to show that you know what you're talking about.

You're still dodging. You can't prove your obviously false statements, and you don't have the courage to admit you spoke too quickly and were wrong.

Chuck

[just another ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge
My position has been that test of any kind do not prove rules knowledge or officiating ability in any way.
....if I had to choose an official, I would not take someone that just got a 99 on their NF test and want to work with them. I want to work with officials that had some "court presence" and could handle themseleves under pressure better. Mainly because in my mind, the guy that got the 99, might crack under pressure and not make competent decisions when they are under the gun.

I agree that it is a possibility that out of a given group of officials the one with the best test score could conceivably be the worst official. But, [/B]I think a high test score does indicate a good knowledge of the rules, and that is certainly a step in the right direction. As I read the above post it sounds like you believe a high score is not only not a positive thing, but is indeed a negative. Is
this the case? Is it your belief that the guy who scored 99
is not capable of having court presence? Is he more likely to crack under pressure than the guy who scored 72? I don't get that.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Jeff, I'm all for putting it to bed. Following are two quotes from your first two posts in this thread:

All it will take to put this to bed is for you to show any evidence whatsoever that either of the above statements is true. One post, one sentence, that supports those ludicrous claims will be sufficient to show that you know what you're talking about.

You're still dodging. You can't prove your obviously false statements, and you don't have the courage to admit you spoke too quickly and were wrong.

Chuck

Dodging what? I never claimed what anyone said something specifically. If I was trying to finger anyone or call out anyone. You are the one trying to make this into what someone said or did not say. Take the comments for what they are worth and move on. If you do not agree with them, then do not agree with them.

Life will go on.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by just another ref

I agree that it is a possibility that out of a given group of officials the one with the best test score could conceivably be the worst official. But, I think a high test score does indicate a good knowledge of the rules, and that is certainly a step in the right direction.[/B]

Well we are just going to have to disagree.

Originally posted by just another ref

As I read the above post it sounds like you believe a high score is not only not a positive thing, but is indeed a negative. Is this the case? Is it your belief that the guy who scored 99 is not capable of having court presence? Is he more likely to crack under pressure than the guy who scored 72? I don't get that.

What does one have to do with the other? I simple said that test do not prove officiating ability, officiating a game does. You can get a 100 on a test and be a wonderful official, but just because you got a high score does not prove that you can official, possess good judgement, hustle, deal with conflict or handle pressure. Test scores to me prove nothing. Especially when the NF asks true/false questions and you can be wrong because you do not know the word for word explaination of what a rule or section is. Basically it shows your ability to memorize words in a book, not make proper calls on a court or field. Because many of us talk about using common sense and not calling obscure rules, but you will never learn that by answering test questions. If that was the case, then there would be no need to attend association or chapter meetings of any kind. All an official would need to do is read the rulebook and step out on the floor and TA DAAAA, you have yourself a good official. And if you believe it does, good. You have every right to your opinion. But as tharbert clearly said in his post, we do not go around questioning folks about their test scores. We do not go around judging officials base on how high they got that year or in past years. They give you an opportunity to open the rulebook and read the passages and finding the situations things might need to be applied, but it does not tell you when to really apply certain rules and when not to apply them at all. The rules state clearly that we are to give a T for a coach out of the box, but that is not the common sense application that many officials hold. And it is the common sense part that can make or break an official. I think three seconds comes to mind.

Peace

[rainmaker]

I haven't checked in on this discussion, nor very many of the discussions between Rut and others, because I'm not at all sure I have anything to add. But I just wonder, if the problem isn't that there are several different languages going on here. I'm reminded of the quip, "England and America are one people seperated by a common language" We all use the same words, but I'm not sure we're all meaning the same things. Knowing that Jeff is African-American, and that Chuck, Tony and others aren't, I can't help but see some cultural stuff that's really muddying the waters here. I'm not the world's greatest expert on cultural problems, but it feels as though y'all are talking past each other a lot of the time. I think the internet is really a weakness in this regard, since words are the sole medium (okay, there is the occasional smilie), and a lot of the nuance gets lost in the translation. Furthermore, words spoken and written act very differently in the black patois than in the standard white English. Once you get used to the black way of communicating, it's kind of rich and pleasant, but it is different, and shouldn't be taken by onlookers as white English. I think Jeff is complimenting us by talking black instead of holding back, and that us white folk who may not hear this kind of conversation much are just not getting it. Maybe. I wish I could get Tony and Jeff on the floor together and see how it goes. It could just be magic! (As long as no one used the F-word!)

[canuckrefguy]

rainmaker, good point.

The voice of reason. As is often the case, from a woman.

Violet Palmer would be proud.

(You ARE a woman, right? If not, my apologies)

Just be glad I don't start talking Canadian, eh? Things will get really muddy, then.

Your reference to white/black is fascinating, because we don't have the same racial tensions that you Americans do. That doesn't mean we don't have diversity problems, but they are nowhere near as deep as yours. Our main struggle is with our Native population, and the immigrants we have, particularly Asian, East Indian, and Arabic.

Anyway, it'd be a good idea to wind this thread down, I don't think anything constructive can come of it now.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Anyway, it'd be a good idea to wind this thread down, I don't think anything constructive can come of it now.

I disagree. I think it's at least possible that Jeff, Chuck, Tony and the others are mature enough and educated enough (with the possible exception of Padgett) to see the possibility that they aren't communicating and find another way to "discuss". That would be a construction of mammoth proportions!

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by rainmaker
That would be a construction of mammoth proportions!

But not one to bet the farm on. It's good to dream, though.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
We all use the same words, but I'm not sure we're all meaning the same things. Knowing that Jeff is African-American, and that Chuck, Tony and others aren't, I can't help but see some cultural stuff that's really muddying the waters here. I'm not the world's greatest expert on cultural problems, but it feels as though y'all are talking past each other a lot of the time. I think the internet is really a weakness in this regard, since words are the sole medium (okay, there is the occasional smilie), and a lot of the nuance gets lost in the translation. Furthermore, words spoken and written act very differently in the black patois than in the standard white English. Once you get used to the black way of communicating, it's kind of rich and pleasant, but it is different, and shouldn't be taken by onlookers as white English. I think Jeff is complimenting us by talking black instead of holding back, and that us white folk who may not hear this kind of conversation much are just not getting it

I'm not totally sure if I agree with you or not. I sorta, kinda know what a nuance is but I have no idea what a patois is. Seriously, if Jeff is "talking black" it is not something that I was aware of. I am interested to see his reaction to this angle.

[JRutledge]

Juulie is correct on many angles. I do speak in ways that many that are not of my community or in my situation would not understand. I do see the interpretions being lost in what I say because they do not come from my region or point of view. Sometimes it is done on purpose, other times it is not. I am who I am. I am not going to stop being that because I am an official. Because when officials that are Black talk amongs each other, we do tend to address issues and concerns that we might not have with fellow white officials. That part is very true. And if that scares people or bothers people, then that is something they are going to just have to deal with.

Peace