The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[newmdref]

Mike. I'm not trying to tell you or others what to do I'm just tired and so are many others of the "My Dad can beat up your Dad" conversation. If you want to talk about the offense as it relates football offciating great but think about a few points:

1. The more the A11 is discussed on public forums such as this one and the more controversy is stirred up from such conversation the more popular it will become thus giving momentum to those who have a vested interest in seeing it succeed. ie - you are contributing to the marketing of this offense of which you so despise

2. Some of the comments made about the individuals who have come up with this offense are slanderous in nature and if you think they are not monitoring this any many other websites like this one your sadly mistaken, especially since so much is at stake for them. The title of your thread in its self makes a slanderous inference




PS- sorry if I offended anyone, I forgot to put my smilely face after my "Ladies Please" comment

[daggo66]

Newmdref, I appreciate where you're coming from, but you're still thinking like a player. That will pass. Many of us, myself included, have a similare backround with the exception that I can add 20 years of officiating experience to that resume. You've come in rather late on this whole mess. Go back and read the many posts, including the ones from KB himself. Then go to his own web site and read the drivel there. There is nothing remotely slanderous in any of these posts. KB purposely walked up to a quiet hornet's nest and started poking it with a stick. I was the first to compare him to Billy Mayes. It is a well deserved comparison.

[newmdref]

Tom, point taken and I agree with your eval. of me with regard to player vs. official and I am here to try and learn that "Official" perspective of the game but its tough when the forum is consumed with in fighting about non-sense or why you can't say NFL as opposed to National Football League and the like. The statement you made about KB poking the nest is exactly what he wants thus my comment/point #1 in my last posting. I only bring up the slander issue because I had a family member who started and ran a national subscribed website, un-related to sports, and was shut down, sued and even subscribers were sued for comments similar in nature to the ones being made on here. Just letting people know to be careful about what you say about an individual on a public forum thats all.

Keeping mouth shut and sitting in the corner

[ajmc]

I'm afraid, newmdref, the sage advice of, "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing" has been completely forgotten by way too many of us, way too often. Part of that may be the fault of the annonimity of the keyboard and the instant nature of today's communication capabilities.

It's refreshing to see that a "new ref" still understands the benefits of simple manners and civil behavior, as well as the potential negative consequences of allowing emotions to guide behavior.

I've long maintained common sense may be the most critical attribute someone can bring to officiating, and that certainly includes how each of us decides to respond to challenge. You seem pointed in a good direction

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm afraid, newmdref, the sage advice of, "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing" has been completely forgotten by way too many of us, way too often. Part of that may be the fault of the annonimity of the keyboard and the instant nature of today's communication capabilities.

It's refreshing to see that a "new ref" still understands the benefits of simple manners and civil behavior, as well as the potential negative consequences of allowing emotions to guide behavior.

I've long maintained common sense may be the most critical attribute someone can bring to officiating, and that certainly includes how each of us decides to respond to challenge. You seem pointed in a good direction

That is crap. You obviously do not know the history of this person. You do not know how this person has basically lied about NF approval or the positions of the NF on this issue. Then when it has been suggested that the motives are more than "making the game better" he claims he is not trying to sell anything and his motives are simply pure. Well that is not the position of KB and this is why many here have pointed this out over and over again. And this is the reason many people have gone after him (he has actually posted here to defend his offense).

Also being a good official means you apply experience and know when to not look like you know everything, when you have achieved nothing.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is crap. You obviously do not know the history of this person. You do not know how this person has basically lied about NF approval or the positions of the NF on this issue. Then when it has been suggested that the motives are more than "making the game better" he claims he is not trying to sell anything and his motives are simply pure. Well that is not the position of KB and this is why many here have pointed this out over and over again. And this is the reason many people have gone after him (he has actually posted here to defend his offense).

Also being a good official means you apply experience and know when to not look like you know everything, when you have achieved nothing.

Peace

You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition.

Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position. This may come as a shock to you, but disagreeing with a message doesn't require being disagreeable with the messenger. As for "crap", a perfect example is resorting to character assassination based on speculation and suspicion and the childish notion that denegrating the messenger somehow weakens his message.

As for the A-11 Offense, I couldn't care less what people think of it, other than their comments adding to my understanding of it, what it requires and whether it violates any existing rules. I appreciate the concerns some have, although I think most of those thus far expressed are somewhat exaggerated. At present, I do not see where this "loophole" violates existing rules, but requires a very high level of compliance with several other rules which causes me to question it's overall practicality. If those rules are subsequently amended to prohibit this "loophole", fine no problem, then we'll all deal with the revisions.

Personally I'm simply disappointed with the with the tone and temperment of some responses objecting to this formation. They speak poorly for the demeanor and manners of officials, in general. Picking apart previous statements to suggest they mean something that may, or may not, have ever entered the speakers mind based on pure speculation is, dare I suggest, "crap" of the first order.

What I may, or may not, have achieved is simply none of your concern and has nothing to do with this issue, or this discussion, much as your achievements or failures have no practical interest to me. I would appreciate any useful detail anyone can provide about the management of this formation and practical advice regarding mechanics that would be helpful in monitoring the eligibility of receivers.

Until such time the rules are adjusted to prohibit this formation, I'll consider it legal and focus on preparing for it and dealing with it. I haven't yet heard all the questions, much less know all the answers, and whining and complaining hasn't helped shorten that gap. How close I come to, " look(ing) like you know everything" is largely a matter of how ignorant those doing the looking actually are.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition.

Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position. This may come as a shock to you, but disagreeing with a message doesn't require being disagreeable with the messenger. As for "crap", a perfect example is resorting to character assassination based on speculation and suspicion and the childish notion that denegrating the messenger somehow weakens his message.

As for the A-11 Offense, I couldn't care less what people think of it, other than their comments adding to my understanding of it, what it requires and whether it violates any existing rules. I appreciate the concerns some have, although I think most of those thus far expressed are somewhat exaggerated. At present, I do not see where this "loophole" violates existing rules, but requires a very high level of compliance with several other rules which causes me to question it's overall practicality. If those rules are subsequently amended to prohibit this "loophole", fine no problem, then we'll all deal with the revisions.

Personally I'm simply disappointed with the with the tone and temperment of some responses objecting to this formation. They speak poorly for the demeanor and manners of officials, in general. Picking apart previous statements to suggest they mean something that may, or may not, have ever entered the speakers mind based on pure speculation is, dare I suggest, "crap" of the first order.

What I may, or may not, have achieved is simply none of your concern and has nothing to do with this issue, or this discussion, much as your achievements or failures have no practical interest to me. I would appreciate any useful detail anyone can provide about the management of this formation and practical advice regarding mechanics that would be helpful in monitoring the eligibility of receivers.

Until such time the rules are adjusted to prohibit this formation, I'll consider it legal and focus on preparing for it and dealing with it. I haven't yet heard all the questions, much less know all the answers, and whining and complaining hasn't helped shorten that gap. How close I come to, " look(ing) like you know everything" is largely a matter of how ignorant those doing the looking actually are.

Perhaps it would be better that you do gather all the information before you declare your holier than thou opinion. You really need to read all this from the very beginning which started last year. Keep in mind this is a forum of officials. KB joined here hoping to get an endorsement. He stayed as we foolishly argued with him. I say foolishly because he learned from us and then used his uncany ability of double speak to spin certain comments to his advantage.

KB came up with this offense and made sure that he could use it legally. It was somewhat successful for his team and they continued to use it. Why isn't that the end of the story? He probably could have flown under the radar with this for the rest of his career. First and foremost he is selling a product and he tried using this forum and it's members in the process. Am I defaming him? No, I am merely stating the facts. Don't take my word for it, read it all for yourself.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition.

You obviously do not know the history and my opinion about Kurt or anyone is not based on anything other then their actions. Kurt has misrepresented many people's positions in order to further his position on this offense. If anything is reprehensible, that should be the case. He has even gone far to suggest the NF has "approved" of the offense when many people on the committee have commented and suggested this violated the spirit and intent of the rules and the rules would be at the very least revisited. And Kurt did not do this on just an article or with a reporter; he did so on this site and the National Federation's site where officials and coaches discuss rules and interpretations. And if that bothers you, then this place is really going to be hard for you to stick around if challenging people's opinions and motives cannot be stated.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position. This may come as a shock to you, but disagreeing with a message doesn't require being disagreeable with the messenger. As for "crap", a perfect example is resorting to character assassination based on speculation and suspicion and the childish notion that denegrating the messenger somehow weakens his message.

I know little about Kurt's emotions, but he does come here often to defend or lie about what people have said about his offense. It is clear that he is trying to sell something and that is what has a lot of people on his case. And the more and more we talk to Kurt, that becomes clearer and clearer. Kurt has on several occasions tried to suggest he was not selling any books or any information about his offense. He has said that he is only trying to promote the game of football. Well that is not true and this thread has exposed that very point of view.

Originally Posted by ajmc

As for the A-11 Offense, I couldn't care less what people think of it, other than their comments adding to my understanding of it, what it requires and whether it violates any existing rules. I appreciate the concerns some have, although I think most of those thus far expressed are somewhat exaggerated. At present, I do not see where this "loophole" violates existing rules, but requires a very high level of compliance with several other rules which causes me to question it's overall practicality. If those rules are subsequently amended to prohibit this "loophole", fine no problem, then we'll all deal with the revisions.

Actually for many people, we do not care that much about the offense either. I have officiated the offense, but I feel the rules are going to change to resemble the NCAA and NFL Rules that would make this situation illegal.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Personally I'm simply disappointed with the with the tone and temperment of some responses objecting to this formation. They speak poorly for the demeanor and manners of officials, in general. Picking apart previous statements to suggest they mean something that may, or may not, have ever entered the speakers mind based on pure speculation is, dare I suggest, "crap" of the first order.

What I may, or may not, have achieved is simply none of your concern and has nothing to do with this issue, or this discussion, much as your achievements or failures have no practical interest to me. I would appreciate any useful detail anyone can provide about the management of this formation and practical advice regarding mechanics that would be helpful in monitoring the eligibility of receivers.

Until such time the rules are adjusted to prohibit this formation, I'll consider it legal and focus on preparing for it and dealing with it. I haven't yet heard all the questions, much less know all the answers, and whining and complaining hasn't helped shorten that gap. How close I come to, " look(ing) like you know everything" is largely a matter of how ignorant those doing the looking actually are.

It is clear that you do not know the history or previous comments made by Kurt. You do not know how he has misrepresented others either on the NF board or officials in their opposition or support of this so called offense. And if that offends you when I say that, I guess you are just going to be mad. I do not think I have done anything to Kurt that he has not done to himself. If he did not want the opinions of others, then you do not come to a website and share those opinions.