That "V" Palmer interview got me thinking about her superior "people skills".
We talk about having good PS all of the time, but seems we never define exactly what that is.
What are some of your opinions about important "people skills"?
omq

Easy
 

You have to be able to sell yourself. You have to be a good communicator, and you must remain objective every second of every day. And you must be approachable and have a sense humor...IMHO

1) Keep a level head at all times.

2) Make EYE CONTACT with players and coaches.

3) Speak firmly but respectfully

4) Honor a simple request for clarification. (This is tough because obviously we can't go to the bench after every call and explain what we did and why, but I have personally seen how a willingness to explain calls at an appropriate time can go a long way toward creating a greater sense of understanding and cooperation.)

5) Smile (when appropriate)

[Edited by Paul LeBoutillier on Feb 24th, 2003 at 02:20 PM]

I have People & Monkey Skills, also known as PMS.

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. In my opinion about officiating and almost anything, the way you deal with people can affect everything you are involved in. If you go around backstabbing, being confrontational and not being open to critisizim, and not being "coachable," you can be doomed to failure in just about anything. What Palmer did was what most have never and will never learned. She realize the situation and reacted accordingly. She is a Black Women and appears to realize that in her dealings with the players and coaches. I can assure you that players treat her in such a way that is totally different than any other official in the NBA and she understands that. Most officials seem to think that they can just make calls and if they are right, they will be seen in a "good" light. Well that is just not true. We bring our own personalities to the table and have to use them differently. I think your personality can make or break you as an official. If you are a 6-8 foot tall official, you can do things or not do things that a 5-8 foot tall official can do. So basically you have to understand your outward appearence, understand your personality and understand who players and coaches will precieve you and act accordingly.

I think this is one of the most underrated aspects of officiating and the reason that many do not make it.

Peace

First, Jeff, nobody really thinks that. You just keep repeating it.

Second, even if somebody (or everybody on this board) did think that, that has nothing to do with why the term "people skills" is not clearly defined.

Get off that horse. It's dead, and it's just not funny.

Chuck

Yeah - you can jump up and clear a wedgie.

Be repectful, receptive,communicate well, and most of all always demonstrate the 3 "F's" ie ALWAYS BE
FIRM
FRIENDLY;and
FAIR

ROTFLMAO!

I've never had to jump to clear one of my wedgies...what are you doing down there in Oregon, Padgett???

Were you the "wedgier" or the "wedgiee",Rocky?

It is very true.
 

Not trying to be funny. Just telling the truth. If you do not agree, take it up with the people that only talk in terms of being a "test" master to prove your worth as an official.

Peace

Mr. People Skills has spoken

Re: It is very true.
 

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

-Keeping your head when all those about you are losing theirs
-Being able to defuse an emotionally charged situation. This is not a strong male trait, it's something we have to develop
-Redirecting focus to get the game going again

I'd like to add that Rut (and I) live in a state that doesn't stress rules knowledge as a major factor to remain registered to officiate high school sports. Frankly, I have never seen the "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo, I have a higher score than you" attitude. Maybe I just don't get out enough.

** See thread with Violet Palmer article

Re: Re: It is very true.
 

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

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. :p

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.

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.

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.

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?

Re: Re: It is very true.
 

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

Rut,

I find it ironic that you have <i> anything </i> 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 <i>only </i>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

to ronald
 

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

Re: Re: Re: It is very true.
 

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

Z, not a courtroom.
 

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

Dodging what?
 

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

Re: Dodging what?
 

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.

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.


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

Re: Re: Dodging what?
 

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!!!

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

Re: Re: Re: Dodging what?
 

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?

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.


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.

Uh, how exactly does it suggest some kind of guilt on my part? :confused: 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

Chuck, let us put this to bed.
 

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 <b>I</b> 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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodging what?
 

LOL! And true.

Z

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.

Putting it to bed
 

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

Re: Chuck, let us put this to bed.
 

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. <b>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.

Re: Putting it to bed
 

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

Re: Re: Chuck, let us put this to bed.
 

Well we are just going to have to disagree.

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 <b>tharbert</b> 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

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!)

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.

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!

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

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.

Much truth to what she says.
 

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

Re: Much truth to what she says.
 

Rut, it is interesting to note that Juulie (who I think is white and married to a black man) never capitalized black or white, but you stated "Black official" and "white official". Is this one of the things that you "do on purpose"? It appears to be a put down.

Re: Re: Putting it to bed
 

Jeff, please don't play dumb, ok? It doesn't become you. I know you're not stupid, and I know you can read. So I also know that must be aware of the request (triple-dog dare) that I've made several times. If you don't want to admit that you were wrong, due to stubbornness or lack of courage, fine. But don't insult my intelligence by pretending.

Jeff, again, here is the exact quote from your first post in this thread:

That is a specific claim. At least one person here thinks that a test score determines the value of an official. That's your claim (or fairly close to it). Did you ascribe this to a particular individual? No. That is, however, irrelevant. All I have asked you to do is to provide some evidence that your statement is true, other than your above-stated claim.

In any intellectual or scientific dialogue, a person who asserts that something is true is expected by his audience to present evidence or support for his assertions. You went to college and graduated with a bachelor's degree (if I recall correctly), so you must know how to present a case and support it. That's all I've asked you to do. Present one single, solitary post in which someone states that a person's test score is completely indicative of that person's officiating ability. If you can't or won't support the claims you've made on this topic, then I again ask (respectfully, this time) that you stop making those claims.

As of now, Jeff, they're worth nothing. I believe them to be totally false, and you've done nothing to change my view on that. If you would find the courage to admit that your comments were incorrect, and if you were to say that you would not make these comments anymore, I believe the respect for you among members of this board would grow immensely. You've said in the past that you don't care about that; nevertheless, I think it's true.

So once again I'll ask; can you offer any support whatsoever for the claim that I quoted above? If not, will you then admit you were wrong? Stop dodging and answer those two simple questions.

Chuck

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

So are you saying Padgett isn't very educated, isn't very mature, or isn't very much of either one? I think he passed the Oregon state Wedgie Test, didn't he???

Some of the best lines in this subject have already been stated, but one of the best tips I have heard of to deal with people skills are to be approachable, fair, and when giving a "T" it is always business, never personal. I have had coaches come and apologize to me after games after they have recieved techs because they know that I only use that as a last resort, and that I have already exhausted every other means necessary to resolve the problem.

So are you saying Padgett isn't very educated, isn't very mature, or isn't very much of either one? I think he passed the Oregon state Wedgie Test, didn't he??? [/B][/QUOTE]Personally,I think Mark is never anything but a class act!
http://www.uselessgraphics.com/itch.gif

Re: Chuck, let us put this to bed.
 

Rainmaker:

I have to disagree with you about Jeff communicating in black. I have yet to read one of his posts where "black speech patterns and syntax" are in his posts. If you were to give his paragraphs to people that did not know his "race", I have no doubt that 99% of the people would say that is "white English". It is only after Jeff explicitly tells us and from some of his posts that one would gather he is black.

Jeff's language and prose is one of an educated speaker; he knows what side the bread is buttered on. Furthermore, compare how Jeff talks through his writing with the hosts of Soul Train or an award's programs for black entertainers. Those speakers speak "black". Then compare that with how Cornell West speaks at seminars and how he writes. You'll find that Jeff's is much closer to Cornell West and that that language is considered the 'standard english language' required to succeed in the professional world. That is the 'English' Jeff is using.

Heck, reading Jeff's posts, I never would have ventured to surmise his race either way. I have always found his posts articulate and accurate.

Re: Re: Chuck, let us put this to bed.
 

This is facsinating. But even Cornell West speaks in a very Afrosentric tone and speech pattern. It is just that Cornel West or Ron Karenga speak in ways that are very Afronsentric as well as being very educated. I would not call that "speaking Black," even thought I do not know what that is, but I do tend to speak in meanings that are not easily indentified if you are not used to being around folks that look me.

Peace

Chuck
 

I did not listen to triple dog dares when I was a shortee, I do not listen to them while I am in my 30s.

I did not say Tony said it or even JR said it or Mick. So for me to claim something specifically, I would have to point someone out.

I do think there are people that feel that way. They bring that to light by the way they have disagreed with or mocked the "presence vs. rules" discussion and taken opposition with me personally. Of course there are individuals that feel that way. Just because they did not use the exact words does not mean it is not true. I guess George Bush has to come out and say this war is only about oil for you to believe that too.


In most intellectual or scientific dialogues that I have been a party to, do not give specific, undeniable evidence to back up a point. Most of the time it is opinion and analysis. That is what I did, that is what I stand by. People do it all the time about my personal beliefs and personal opinions and I do not see you and others asking for proof to those claims. Like the captialization of "Black." I explained that years ago and folks are still trying to say it has another meaning. Well ya know, they have that right to believe that. Because the word "Black" discribes a race and ethnicity of a group of people that "white" does not. It is used differently in politics, social issues and scientific study. But there will still be people that think I am doing the Eddie Murphy skit on SNL when talking about these issues. :D



I am not incorrect at all. Because you do not believe that anyone feels that way, I do. It is called an opinion and I stand by it. You do not have to say something in order for the proof to be there. Actions speak louder than words, even thought it is difficut to see actions here, but when I see the same people giving the same argument toward anything, they must feel a certain way.

When you ask for the same evidence when folks say what they say about me. When you require others to "back up" their claims they make about others, then I will think about showing you specifics. But the reality is that all you have to do is stick around and read the opposition. It will come out. It will manifest itself. Just pay attention and you will see for yourself if you are truely open minded about it. Tony calls me liar every other post, but does not seem to know what that means. Because in order to lie, you have to be telling something the opposite of the truth knowingly. And when we are talking about opinions and different views on the facts, I can hardly be a liar when we do not agree on what the facts are.

Peace

Jeff,

I'd have to say the only time I have heard Cornell is on C-span where I believed the setting to be a seminar type one. Might not be the best word for the setting. Nevertheless, I never found his speech patterns or tones to be afrocentric. I considered them as standard as the next guy who was speaking. Limited viewings.

I have never heard you speak but if you speak the way you write, I characterize that as standard English used in the academic and professional world. Your thoughts, at times, have an 'afrocentric' viewpoint but the syntax and semantics, and your written register are standard English as far as I can see. Plus your rhetorical style is associated with the western european-greco world.

Re: Re: Much truth to what she says.
 

Just for the record, I'm not married to a black man. My daughter is black, and she is adopted. My "borned" children are blonde haird and blue eyed.

The part about capitalizing and not-capitalizing is one thing about educated black English that whites may not understand, and your reaction to it "it appears to be a put down" proves my point. We whites simply don't always understand what is being said. Jeff doesn't do that because he wants to obfuscate, he's just trying to have a discussion. Just like you are, dblref.

I think we should lay the whole thing to rest. Jeff, could you trust me enough to agree that perhaps no one really meant that rules-knowledge is the only important thing, if I can talk Chuck and Tony into agreeing that perhaps you see value in both the rules-knowledge and the court presence? One of my dreams in life has been to be a mediator in race relation problems. Could I have the chance to practice here?

Afrocentric
 

Ron,

I am not talking about using standard English or not using standard English. When I state that Cornel West talks in an Afrocentric tone, I am talking about the meanings behind what he is saying. The way that he and others talk to the audience that is in front of him. I have seen Cornel West speak several times and have met the man after he wrote the book "Race Matters." He talks in a way, not unlike other African-American intellectuals to the audience that is in front of him. W.E.B Du Buois wrote about the "Dual Consciousness of Black People," which basically states that Blacks depending on who is around them, the speak differently and use different meanings for similar words and speech patterns. But really this is a bigger issue than can really be discussed here. I just agree with what Juulie's point was at the beginning. For whatever her personal situation is, she picked up on something that I have noticed for a long time. But that is why she is great.

Peace

I trust you Juulie.
 

Maybe the words did not come out that way, but that has been suggested by many posts against things I have stated. I think we are simplifying the issue way too much anyway. Officiating is not about two issues. Rules knowledge to me has many different elements to it than just knowing a rule. Court Presence has many different elements. And there is much more to becoming a good or great official than those two elements. Neither element has to do with your fitness, floor mechanics or positions just to name a few or even people skills. This is why you will never see me saying someone is a bad official by an opinion expressed here. Kind of hard to judge that without seeing if that individual can get up and down a court. But I guess that is just me.

Peace

In your humble opinion, please tell us who you think these people are. You've made the statement. If you feel this strongly about it, please expound on it and tell us who you're speaking of. Or are you unwilling to do that because your statement is just BS?

Jeff,

Got it.

For Tony.
 

You are a very sick person. You need help. For anyone that seems to make themselve the issue time and time again, you need to look deep inside of a mirror and figure that out. This post was about Violet Palmer and how she handles situations as discribed in an article. But self-absorbed people on this board like yourself have to make my comments (one persons I mind you) and use this forum to dispute everything you "think" I stand for. You live in North Carolina, come out of that state or your region every once in a while. You might actually learn something some day. You will find that all people do not look alike, think alike or are not motivated by the same things. You do nothing it seems but question everyone that does not view the officiating game the way you do. I have read your other comments where you are constantly questioning other people in a very condensending way. This is a discussion board where we discuss all kinds of things. It is based in officiating but like anything in life and anything that is interesting, we discuss other issues. You need to understand that I do not live for your approval. I do not do things to make Tony happy. You can give example after example of things you say taken out of context and have nothing to do with anything and bring them here. If that is what tickles your whistle, do that.

If you have not noticed, I do not care what Chuck or JR or anyone thinks in relation to what I say. If you disagree, disagree. You have the right and the ability to do so. But I stand by what I say. I feel there are people that make an issue out of tests and think they prove some kind of officiating ability which I have never witnessed from individuals that are in my region of the country or in my particular state. We do not care about these things. We do not seem to be worried about those appliciation of the rules that you seemed to be concerned with. We have over 40 different associations and have well over 25 State Clinicians and they all do not agree about many issues related to officiating. But you think we are going to come to a discussion board with people literally all over the world and agree what Rule 2 says backwards and forwards. You need to get some perspective in your life.

Peace

Rut,

Tony certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but I will anyway. Based on a discussion board that you have often called "fantasy," you have deduced that Tony is a sick person? Every time I think you've gone over the top, you go even higher. I don't remember a time when Tony has been condescending. He's been helpful and knowledgeable and I've learned a lot from him on the boards. I don't agree with him on everything, but when I do disagree it's always stayed civil.

IMHO, you are far more condescending than anyone here and your confrontational style has certainly caused many posters to leave who would have otherwise had much to contribute.

I don't remember anyone EVER saying that test scores make an official. There was debate over what was more important, an official with good rule knowledge or good presence. That horse was beaten to death long ago, yet (even though you "don't care" what anyone thinks of your opinion) you can't let it go and bring it up again and again and even lie to support your position. Then when someone catches you in a lie, you deny it and even manage to turn it into an issue involving race (what the heck is that about?). Get over it yourself!

Z

Impossible!
 

I can't believe that I read over 4 pages of this garbage.

I personally know people that brag about their test scores as if it somehow made them a better official than others. In my opinion they are braggarts and not good officials. I have never run into anyone that thinks rules knowledge or a good test score is the ONLY criteria for being classified as a good official. Their discussions may very well ignore people skills because they are personally weak on these qualities but I have never had anyone say rules knowledge/test scores were the prime criterion for being a great official.

I think the point that needs to be made under this topic (People Skills.... remember? Back before this discussion left the world of basketball, we were discussing people skills)
is...

Rules knowledge is rather easy to acquire. However, practical application of the rules involves people skills. People skills, if you don't have them from your own natural character or from the way you were brought up by your parents, are not so easy to acquire as is rules knowledge. Development of people skills requires very conscious, continuous effort.

We all need to be working on our people skills because they are what make us successful in all facets of life. They are obviously of ultimate importance on the basketball court when dealing with emotionally charged 'people.'

As a couple of the primary contributors to this discussion thread are fond of saying when they close...

PEACE

Am I the only one who has this mental picture of Rut sitting back in his computer chair, laughing at the way he's gotten a rise out of everyone, and how he's somehow managed to perpetuate it over five pages, and six days worth of meaningless one-upsmanship?

[Edited by canuckrefguy on Feb 26th, 2003 at 06:12 PM]

No, you're not the only one. The other image I have is of Rut cleaning his rifle as he writes names on each bullet..."Zebraman," "Tony," "JR," "Chuck"....... :-)

Z

Too funny.
 

Well obviously I am here so I cannot image what I am doing. But to give you a better picture, it is very funny to me. I have not even mentioned any names, but here they come thinking every comment is about them. That is absolutely halarious to me. :D

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Much truth to what she says.
 

Rainmaker: Thanks for replying. I know you had mentioned earlier that your daughter is black and is adopted. I assumed (I know, I know) that your husband was black. I applaud you and your husband for taking this position. You seem to be a class lady and if your daughter turns out like you, I know you will "bust a gut", so to speak.

Regarding the reason I originally posted, I do understand plain English and I have noticed that Rut usually capitalizes the "B" and not the "w", and he has stated that he does some things on purpose and I was curious if this was "one of those things". That's all.

Purpose.
 

Yes it is very much on purpose. But not for the reasons you want to make it out to be.

Peace

Re: Purpose.
 

I wasn't "making it out to be" anything. What reason do you think I want to "make it out to be"? Just curious.


[Edited by dblref on Feb 27th, 2003 at 05:58 AM]

Re: Chuck
 

Just to be clear, and I hope everyone already realizes this, the "triple-dog dare" was meant in fun. My posts have been very serious in tone and I wanted to put just a little levity into them. The triple-dog dare comes from "A Christmas Story" where the kids dare their friend to put his tongue on the flagpole.

You do realize that this is obviously and outrageously false, don't you? Engage brain before typing, please. To make a specific claim, the claim must be made about a particular person? Uh, no. Here's an example. "The car in the driveway at 10 Main Street is red." That's a specific claim. It's verifiable (or falsifiable). It makes no mention of any specific person. Here's another one. A woman goes to the police and says, "Someone has been stalking me." She has no idea who's been following her. She's pointed out no particular person. On your view, the police should tell her to get lost until she can make a real claim.


I don't mean to get too personal, Jeff, but they're not mocking the discussion; they're mocking you b/c you continue to claim that they believe that ONLY the rules test matters. They don't believe that, and since you won't listen when they tell you that, you make yourself the target of the discussion.

In most intellectual or scientific dialogues that I have been a party to, do not give specific, undeniable evidence to back up a point.[/quote][/b]
So what? I never asked you to give "undeniable" evidence. All I asked for was for you to produce one single solitary sentence from any post in which somebody seriously propounded the view that you have tried to ascribe to them.

I might disagree that this is true of scientific discussions. But even if you are right, and you may be, that's not what you did. In order to do analysis, you have to have something that you are analyzing. Some data, some observations, some text, something. You've provided none of that. You've made a false statement that has no basis in fact, whatsoever. And you haven't even bothered to try to give any rationale for that statement.

Ah, we're back to this old chestnut, are we? Well, Jeff, you and I have had this discussion before. You did not state an opinion. You stated a matter of fact. You said:

That's not an opinion. You are making a claim of FACT. It's either true or false. And in fact, it's false. Your statement is no different from saying that 2 + 2 = 5. You can say "it's my opinion" all day, but that doesn't mean that two and two really are five. You can say

all day but it doesn't make it true. It doesn't even make it "true for you". It's objectively false.

As I said, this is not a matter of opinions. This is a matter of what the facts are. Now, perhaps we really do not agree on what the facts are. All I've been asking you to do -- all along -- is to show me the FACTS that back up your claim. Help me out, and share with me the same facts that you have. Because if I'm wrong, I want to know that, I really do.

So please, I'll ask again, please show me one post, one sentence -- anything -- that supports your view and I will shut up about this topic forever.

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

Ah, once more you set out to slay that dastardly windmill, Don Chuckote!

http://wso.williams.edu/~agonzale/quijote/quijote.gif

"Good luck"....Sancho Referee

Keep pushing buddy.

http://www.kentlew.com/Portfolio/Sisyphus.jpg

Jurassic Park and Dan_Ref

Those are real good. Where did you get them?

Ronald,all you have to do is punch in the subject matter that you want into GOOGLE,and then hunt up an image that you think is fitting.Right click on the image you want,and then left click on "view image".Write down the URL. For animated Gif's,just punch that in too,and they will show you what sites are available.If you hit "quote" at the end of one of the posts with a picture or gif in it,you can see how the picture or gif can be put in.

We have fun with it.

Jurassic Park??:confused:

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2003 at 01:17 PM]

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

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.

http://wso.williams.edu/~agonzale/quijote/sancho.gif

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

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

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

OK
 

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

You're welcome,Reynald.

Re: OK
 

[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

Re: OK
 

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?

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.

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?

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]

Re: Re: OK
 

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



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.



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.


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

Re: Re: OK
 

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.

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

Re: Re: Re: OK
 

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.


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 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.

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

How dare you!!!
 

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 <b>boys</b> 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 <b>you</b> 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

Re: How dare I?
 

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.

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.

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 :D


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.

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]

Un-f*cking-believable.

http://www.jeremywood.biz/frustration.jpg

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/pc-crash.gif :D

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

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

Did Someone Ask for Wedgie Man?
 

http://www.geocities.com/kitikat7/an...heroWedgie.gif

We really need to move on!

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.

Who said anything about being mad? Because I made some comments does not mean that I am mad. :eek: 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 <b>you</b> 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

Wow Dan! You're a very handsome man! :D

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

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/jump.gif

[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

Zebra
 

Your head is so far stuck up your behind you think every comment in opposition to you is about rules knowledge. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk.../headshake.gif 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!!!! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/bangin.gif

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

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