People Skills...

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by JRutledge


One of the main reasons it is not defined is because we have people on this board that think your test score is the determiner of what officiating is all about.

Now Chuck I assume (gets us in trouble doing that, but I will do it anyway) that this is the statement that you find objectionable.

There was someone that had praised an official on this board for passing a written test but failing a floor test. You had another person in this same thread claim they did not want see someone officiate that did not pass a test with a 70 or higher. When someone with a straight face can praise someone's officiating ability because the passed a written test, but failed the all important "floor test," I do not know about you, but that seems to say someone feels that tests mean a little more than what I personally feel is required to officiate. Officiating is not just subjected to one level or one kind of ball. I know of in my state the only test you have to pass is the one for HS. But in college, rec. leagues(adult, kids), middle school games, park district, AAU, YBOA and church leagues or tounaments, you do not have to pass any tests at all to officicate. I know of many that do not officiate any HS, but officiate all these levels and do not pass any tests. Many of them are called renegades, but they still officiate. They still get games. They still work often. Then they might after some years actually decide by their choice to join an association and become a "real" official. And even those that are "real" officials, they are not always people that can pass the tests on their own. Nor would many around them expect them to. But the officials that do all these leagues or tournaments that are not HS based, it is usually the more experienced officials that are wanted, so they can handle the conflicts and the unusual situations the best. And they are not looking for guys like JR that will argue the word for word citations in the rulebook. If JR would do that crap around me and many places I officiate during the summer, he might get his behind kicked talking about rules in a certain manner. He and others better learn how to have some conflict resolution skills, if not they might not get out without a black eye.

Is that proof enough? I do not expect it to be, but you keep thinking no one feels that way.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Funny thing about the internet...any idiot can threaten to beat someone up sitting behind their keyboard.

[Larks]

We really need to move on!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge
[/B]

And they are not looking for guys like JR that will argue the word for word citations in the rulebook. If JR would do that crap around me and many places I officiate during the summer, he might get his behind kicked talking about rules in a certain manner. He and others better learn how to have some conflict resolution skills, if not they might not get out without a black eye.
[/B][/QUOTE]I only respond to your posts when they are concerned directly with rules. Let me suggest that if you are going to get mad,then you maybe should quit posting incorrect rules information.That would certainly stop me from responding to your posts.

I will not respond at any time to personal attacks,like the one that you made above.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


I only respond to your posts when they are concerned directly with rules. Let me suggest that if you are going to get mad,then you maybe should quit posting incorrect rules information.That would certainly stop me from responding to your posts.

I will not respond at any time to personal attacks,like the one that you made above.

Who said anything about being mad? Because I made some comments does not mean that I am mad. Sorry, this board just makes me laugh, I can never and I mean never think of a time that I ever was mad by anything said on this board. And for someone that makes a habit of making personal attacks, I find that rather funny coming from the likes of you. And I have not given incorrect information that pertains to the rules, you just want to dissect them and try to correct me when I do not quote word for word what you think is was not said. Because folks like you have to act as a robot to understand anything, many outside of your way of thinking to do not see things in black and white as you do. When folks like yourself talk about advantage/disadvantage like you have, I do not try to come behind you and say, "that is incorrect." There is not passage in the rulebook that even uses the word advantage/disadvantage, but you have advocated that language as it relates to fouls and violations. I have never suggested that you were wrong or that what you said was not the language of the rulebook. But then again, here is an actual example. I think that is what you wanted to here.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

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

Wow Dan! You're a very handsome man!

[canuckrefguy]

I think that's the picture that came with the frame! !

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

When someone with a straight face can praise someone's officiating ability because the passed a written test, but failed the all important "floor test," I do not know about you, but that seems to say someone feels that tests mean a little more than what I personally feel is required to officiate.

There you go assuming and making an *** out of yourself again. Who said anything about floor tests? Nothing was said about floor tests. You honestly think someone who can't get above a 70 on an open book NFHS written test has enough grasp of the rules to officiate a school game? Come on, be serious.

And they are not looking for guys like JR that will argue the word for word citations in the rulebook. If JR would do that crap around me and many places I officiate during the summer, he might get his behind kicked talking about rules in a certain manner.


Hey, there's an intelligent way to resolve conflict. Well done. Let's see...if a ref thinks it's important to have good rule knowledge, let's "kick his behind." You are really showing your ability for intelligent conversation and conflict resolution. Nice one!


He and others better learn how to have some conflict resolution skills, if not they might not get out without a black eye.

That makes sense....if you think a ref needs better conflict resolution skills (based on the fact that he has good rule knowledge), beat some conflict resolution into him. Hahahaha..... that's beautiful. Too darn funny!!!! Duh, I wonder if that's possibly conflicting. Do you think? Is that your idea of conflict resolution? That is so dumb it's hilarious.

Is that proof enough? I do not expect it to be, but you keep thinking no one feels that way.


I have no idea what your point is. It got lost somewhere in the ignorance and the part about kicking someone's behind. But that was hilarious! Your best ever.

Z

[JRutledge]

Your head is so far stuck up your behind you think every comment in opposition to you is about rules knowledge. I am not talking about rules knowledge you idiot. I am talking about finding ways to handle yourself and resolve conflict. Quoting rules never seems to goes well with players and coaches. They are not coming at you with the same level of understanding, nor are they coming to you with the same kind of gripe about what you called. Coaches and players think you messed up because they feel you do not know what you are doing. The word for word reciting of verticality is not going to help you with players that do not understand that rule. Sorry, but that is not how it is done. And I am still waiting for that coach to question my test scores as it relates to my officiating ability. When they say to me, "doesn't it say hold instead of grab," maybe I will then believe you.

If all you can do is quote a stupid rule and cannot recognize when things are getting out of hand, you might find yourself on the other end of a fist. Not by officials, but the players and coaches. Helloooooooooo!!!!

This post started basically about comments that Ms. Palmer had with a player and how she dealt with it. The conversation that was quoted is much more of what happens on a basketball court than the kind that we have here about whether the rule has "grab" or "guard" in the wording of an article. That is not the kind of conversation I have with coaches and players when they are pleading their case. Sorry, but they are usually complaining to me "ref can you watch him grabbing me?" Or "ref he did it first." Or better yet a coach goes crazy and says, "I think you missed that travel there." The next words that come out of your mouth might set the tone or take the cover off an already volitle situation. 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. Trust me, conflict resolution has very little to do with what a test will teach you. Maybe that is why that first year official failed that floor test and your boy told him he was fine because he passed a written test. Keep telling officials coming up that crap and they might not realize that we are dealing with tempers and harsh attitudes. And when I read many posts, I here guys debating over rules and phrases like the sky is falling. It really is not that serious.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
I think that's the picture that came with the frame! !

Hey, that looks a lot like me, except for the hair...teeth...ears....nose...eyes...other than that he could be my twin brother!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Now Chuck I assume (gets us in trouble doing that, but I will do it anyway) that this is the statement that you find objectionable.

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

There was someone that had praised an official on this board for passing a written test but failing a floor test. When someone with a straight face can praise someone's officiating ability because they passed a written test, but failed the all important "floor test," I do not know about you, but that seems to say someone feels that tests mean a little more than what I personally feel is required to officiate.

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.

posted by Blackhawk 357
Hang in there. If you have the passion for the game like it sounds, you will be a very good official.

posted by woolnojg
You can still be a good official. Experience tells me it takes about 3 years to become a good official. You're still in your 1st

posted by Jurrasic Park Pork Ref
What's the problem? You know the rules,love the game and want to continue to be a part of it. Go ahead and damn well do it then! There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't! . . . If your mentor thinks that you're gonna make a good ref,then you probably will. . . Don't give it up. We need good officials-and they don't come ready made!

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.

posted by jdccpa
my floor test last week was a disaster. I did a game with a former patched official of many years experience who was also doing his floor test; next to him I looked bad. Plus I was bad.

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

[JRutledge]

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.

Peace

[mikesears]

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

[zebraman]

[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

[ROMANO]

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