People Skills...

[Ridgeben]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Funny. I've worked with black officials (quite a few in New Orleans), and I've never talked with other white officials about anything other than whether I think the officials are skilled.

I'm naive I guess, but I don't care if my partner is black or white, male or female. I just want to know they have my back.

Rich

Rich,
You from New Orleans? That is my neck of the woods, where you from?
Ben

[ronald]

Jurassick Park,

Thanks. I thought there might be a place you were getting them from. I seem to remember here or on the softball forum somebody had posted a link for smiles.

[ronald]

But it is we Sanchos who discern the "real truth".

[Edited by ronald on Feb 27th, 2003 at 01:43 PM]

[AK ref SE]

Reading through this entire thread.....I realized one think! People here really need to work on there people skills! We are offials, coaches, and enjoy the game. Many are acting not there age, or have to make sure that they are right while everyone else is wrong. I have not seen to much in this post, except for some of the comments on the very first page that I would take as people skills!

AK ref SE

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


And finally, Jeff, I have never called you a liar. I have never said that you have intentionally tried to mislead anybody. I think you're wrong. I think you are perpetuating a falsehood. But if you're an honorable person, you will either prove your claim or stop making it.

Chuck

Ya Boy just the other week told someone they knew the rules because they past a test. How can someone know the rules by passing a test? This person that got this advice was a first year official that did not pass a floor test. And your boy told him after he claimed he got a high score, "you know the rules." What?? How can someone pass one test in their career and know the rules? If they did not pass a floor test and advance as this young official wanted to, then obviously there is more to what we do thing writing on a piece of paper. If I read the same things in officiting publications and in articles that talk about what is important to officiating, why would folks come here and not repeat the same thing?

There is a search engine on this board. Someone said to me long time ago on this board and the other board, "if you cannot pass a test, then you have no business officiating." Now that was said, it does not matter who said it. I did not see the likes of you disagreeing when it was said. I did not see you then standing up for truth and justice you claim you are trying to stand for now. Maybe the person who said that did not mean it the way I interpreted (that is possible) that statement, but I do not see whatelse that could mean. That is just one statement and it is clear to me. I realize the audience that I am talking to and I am not concerned with disagreement. Disagreement is apart of life and life will go on.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ronald
Jurassick Park,

Thanks. I thought there might be a place you were getting them from. I seem to remember here or on the softball forum somebody had posted a link for smiles.

You're welcome,Reynald.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
If I read the same things in officiting publications and in articles that talk about what is important to officiating, why would folks come here and not repeat the same thing?


Who do you think writes those articles Rut? Yep, referees...maybe some of the same ones who come here. I've even been quoted in a couple of them.


There is a search engine on this board.


Yeah, but that search engine isn't the one making claims with no basis. So you can just say anything you want and when you get called on it you just say, "it's on the internet somewhere." Yeah, that's fair.


Someone said to me long time ago on this board and the other board, "if you cannot pass a test, then you have no business officiating." Now that was said, it does not matter who said it.


Here in Washington State, you only have to get 70% on the NFHS written test and it's open book. If you can't do that, I completely agree that you have no business officiating. It would do a disservice to the players and coaches to not have better rule knowledge than that. In fact, I think 70% is way too low.


Disagreement is apart of life and life will go on.


True, but I think most of us will either back up a claim we make or else say, "my bad."

Z

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
And your boy told him after he claimed he got a high score, "you know the rules." What?? How can someone pass one test in their career and know the rules?

First of all, I don't have a boy. I have a daughter, but that's not what you meant, of course. Neither I, nor presumably anyone whom you might assume to be my boy, appreciates comments of that nature.

Second, I'm not sure why his comment upsets you. He didn't say that the new official was a rules "expert" or anything. But obviously that person studied and knew enough about the rules to pass. I think you are obviously correct in saying that passing a test does not ensure perfect rules knowledge. But so what? I don't think it's fair to interpret "you know the rules" that way.

I think it's fairer to understand that comment as meaning that the official who studies well enough to pass a test knows more about the rules than 99% of the coaches, players, and fans that will be in the gym during his game. That's all. Would you agree to that?

obviously there is more to what we do thing writing on a piece of paper.

And Jeff, you will not find one single official on this board who will disagree with that comment. Not one. We all know this. You're not letting us in on any secrets. We ALL agree with you on this. If you think anybody would disagree, then you are mistaken.

Someone said to me long time ago on this board and the other board, "if you cannot pass a test, then you have no business officiating." Now that was said, it does not matter who said it. I did not see the likes of you disagreeing when it was said.

Is this what you offer as evidence? Somebody once told me. . .? Not exactly compelling. Nevertheless, it's close enough. You didn't see me disagreeing with it, b/c I think it's probably true. Rules knowledge isn't everything, as I've agreed above. But I think having a basic understanding of the basic rules is necessary (but NOT sufficient, ok?) for quality officiating. No one is saying that passing a test is all you need. But if you go on the floor and call a "false start" or "icing", you probably shouldn't be officiating basketball. Would you disagree with that?

Maybe the person who said that did not mean it the way I interpreted (that is possible) that statement,

No maybe about it. Whatever you interpreted it to mean, it DOESN'T mean "Rule knowledge is all you need to be a good official".

So will you agree to stop claiming that some people hold that position? Please?

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Feb 27th, 2003 at 03:18 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


Who do you think writes those articles Rut? Yep, referees...maybe some of the same ones who come here. I've even been quoted in a couple of them.

I will remember that referees can say something and all referees have to agree with them. That is great logic Z

Originally posted by zebraman

Yeah, but that search engine isn't the one making claims with no basis. So you can just say anything you want and when you get called on it you just say, "it's on the internet somewhere." Yeah, that's fair.

Why is it not fair. I never pointed out a specific person. But here you are trying to defend something you claim did not happen. Interesting.

Originally posted by zebraman

Here in Washington State, you only have to get 70% on the NFHS written test and it's open book. If you can't do that, I completely agree that you have no business officiating. It would do a disservice to the players and coaches to not have better rule knowledge than that. In fact, I think 70% is way too low.

Well in the Land of Lincoln you have to have an 80 out of 100 to pass the test for a basic requirement. It is an open book test. We go over it in groups and for those that get lower scores, no one holds it against them or loses assignments because one official got a 80 and another recieved a 95. And the only time it seems to be an issue with us, is when someone got a 95 and we are trying to figure out which ones that person go wrong. And it seems like every year they throw out 3 questions because of the wording was incomplete or did not make sense. So at the end of the day, these test mean very little to those officiting.

Originally posted by zebraman

True, but I think most of us will either back up a claim we make or else say, "my bad."

Z

I do not think you understand what an opinion is. It is not based on word for word facts, it is based on the interpretations behind things as well. If we were to debate the war, we would not all be given proven facts to back up whatever position we stand by. We would be giving information that "we" interpret as factual or what we see the issues are about. This is not different. And the fact that individuals like yourself keep trying to defend something, suggest that you are taking issue with my comments personally. If not, you would have let it go.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

No maybe about it. Whatever you interpreted it to mean, it DOESN'T mean "Rule knowledge is all you need to be a good official".

Doesn't mean that it is not true either. But that is why you keep defending this issue. As I said, my name is not Jesus, Budda or Muhammad. I am not the final word on this or any issue. And I will continue to say what I believe when I feel it is appropriate. So if you cannot understand that, so be it.

Originally posted by ChuckElias

So will you agree to stop claiming that some people hold that position? Please?

People on these boards have claimed all kind of things about me that are not true, I do not feel the need to defend all of them or even most of them. I do not see your "triple dog dare" then.

BTW, "Ya Boy" is a phrase used a lot on the Pardon the Interuption show. It is used by Tony or Mike to claim that they stand by a certain individual that they have stuck up for at one point. So the comment was in jest like the "triple dog dare" comment. We are all just having fun here.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Doesn't mean that it is not true either.

Jeff, what in the world is that supposed to mean?!?!?! My point was that you interpreted the comment incorrectly. The person who made that comment did not mean that rule knowledge is all you need to be a good official. Your reply doesn't even make sense.

But that is why you keep defending this issue.

First, I'm not defending any issue. I am, and have been, trying to get you to produce some evidence for your claim that there are some people on this board who believe that passing a rules test is all that is necessary for being a great official. That's all I'm trying to do.

Second, what exactly is why I keep defending this issue? Again, your comments are simply non-sensical.

And I will continue to say what I believe when I feel it is appropriate.

And I will continue to tell you that what you believe on this particular issue is not true. Nobody on this board believes that rules knowledge is the only thing necessary for being an outstanding official. Nobody. And you can't show otherwise.

BTW, "Ya Boy" is a phrase used a lot on the Pardon the Interuption show. It is used by Tony or Mike to claim that they stand by a certain individual that they have stuck up for at one point.

Fair enough. I love PTI and I've heard them say it. Perhaps I over-reacted. Perhaps I should've recognized the reference. (A smiley might have helped. . .)

But I am not sticking up for anybody in this thread. I am not the defender of some person or group. All I'm doing is asking you to provide some support for the ridiculously false claim that you made on the first page of this thread. You haven't done it. I don't think you can do it. Because [everyone together, now] nobody actually believes that rule knowledge is all it takes to be a good official!! Nobody.

So please, if you have some sort of evidence or support for your claim, let us see it. If not, then you should have the maturity to stop saying it.

Chuck

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

So please, if you have some sort of evidence or support for your claim, let us see it. If not, then you should have the maturity to stop saying it.

Chuck

If this is about evidence to you, there is enough out there. If you claim that someone did not mean something by certain comments, you know more than I do. One of your boys just made a claim that you just said no one said in this thread alone. He qualified it, but it was still said. Something that I do not believe nor would say is important, but it was still said.

If you do not want me to say something, you are barking up the wrong tree. You have no right to tell me what to say and it is very offensive for you to tell me how to form my opinions or my arguments here or anywhere for that matter. Just because you want some evidence. I just gave you some in this post, but you will claim that is not what was meant or what was said. Life will go on someday I guess, not just today.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
If this is about evidence to you, there is enough out there.

Well, then show me some! Please!! I've been begging for you to show me just a little. That's all I've been asking for. I need you to show it to me b/c I honestly have never seen it.

One of your boys just made a claim that you just said no one said in this thread alone. He qualified it, but it was still said.

Another PTI reference. I get it this time! But what was said earlier in the thread? Can you quote the passage you're talking about? I just looked back thru the thread and I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. Thanks.

You have no right to tell me what to say

First, I don't think that I've told you that you have to say or not say anything. I did say you should "shut up about it", but that was mostly for effect and probably a little over the line. I've asked (even said "please" ) that you refrain from making comments that are untrue, and I've been trying to show you which of your comments are false. You are, of course, free to say whatever untrue things you wish. It only hurts your own credibility, however.

Second (and now I'm getting very far afield, indeed), I do in fact have the right to tell you what to say. I'd be stupid to think that you'd listen to me; but as you have pointed out in the past, this is a discussion forum and I can say whatever I want. That includes saying that you can't say something. I would never actually do that, however; nor would I expect you to conform to such an order. I think that goes without saying

it is very offensive for you to tell me how to form my opinions or my arguments here or anywhere for that matter.

As I said in an earlier post, people in our culture take offense much too easily. I don't know how you form your opinions. I'm not telling you how to form your opinions. I'm merely telling you that one statement that you made is false. And why would you take offense at someone telling you how to form an argument? Isn't that what philosophy professors and law professors do all the time? The only thing I've said about making an arguement is that you are almost always required to give evidence of some sort.

Just because you want some evidence. I just gave you some in this post,

No you didn't. You simply said that there was evidence somewhere earlier in the thread. But as I said, I honestly don't know what you're pointing to. So if you could quote the passage that you're referring to, maybe we can get this thing settled. I'd like that.

Because as I've repeatedly requested, if you can show me any evidence at all -- one post, or one sentence -- where somebody seriously suggested that rule knowledge is the only necessary component of being an outstanding official, then I will forever take your side in this argument and will never mention it again. But if you can't produce it, I think you would gain mountains of respect and credibility by saying simply that you were mistaken and that you won't repeat the falsehood again.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Feb 27th, 2003 at 07:26 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Un-f*cking-believable.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Un-f*cking-believable.