The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why do you need to send out a paper if the offense was already "approved?"

Why do you need to keep telling us what the Chairperson said if the offense was already "approved?" If the offense is approved, what are you worried about? Oh I get it, the rules still might be changed and you do not have the support you claim to have had to keep the rules the same. I get it, now. And the fact that I keep pointing this out, solidifies that I have personally attacked you, or were unprofessional because I see through the game.

Thanks for playing.

Ajmc, Now do you see what I am talking about?

Peace

I guess I'm just surprised that someone who tags their offerings with reference to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King would be so comfortable with using the tactics of personal attacks and unprofessional behavior, both of which were used against them.

All this flack about, "What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting?" is all a matter of perception, and not all perceptions are alike. Does the A-11 offense seek to exploit the current rule on "Player formation and numbering requirements NF:7.2.5.b.exception)? Absolutely, is that necessarily a bad thing? That all depends, on whether the rule makers decide the intended exploitation crosses the line.

The current rule is a perfect example of a rule being adjusted OVER TIME to deal with the reality previous adjustments created. There was a time where numbers and positions didn't matter. As the game evolved that was changed to reflect the numbering requirements we see today, for multiple reasons including the ability to monitor eligible receivers in light of expanding formations and strategies.

At the High School level this caused additional concern because it limited teams from mixing their better athletes in certain positional combinations. As is still the case today, not all High Schools have an unlimited stable of "better" athletes and a lot of schools play a lot of their better athletes in multiple positions, by necessity unique to the HS level.

Part of the logic behind the current "Exception" was to allow these "better" athletes, whose skill and talents called for their primary roles to be as eligible receivers, to participate in SK formations. Reality is that all rules draw a line, and staying below that line is acceptable while moving a micro distance over the line becomes unacceptable. That's a reality of rules, all rules.

Games (of which HS football still is) are often played staying as close to that line as possible, without stepping over it (ie. exploiting, circumventing, pushing, expanding, etc). Pushing the boundries of current rules often causes the rules to expand when the decision is made that expanding the current rule is better, for the game, than rigidly enforcing the current version. (Exampled by Rosa sitting and Martin walking)

What some may honestly view as a travesty, it appears Coach Bryant may view as a continuation of the purpose of the current exception to allow "better" athletes to participate in more opportunity. He may be wrong, may be dead wrong but being wrong doesn't make him dishonest, deceitful or some evil element worthy of personal attack. Until the rule makers declare it wrong, it isn't automatically wrong.

When you drift from expressing opposition to this, or any, situation, as it applies to the nature of the game to personally attacking, mocking and demonizing the individual who happens to hold a different perception, you weaken your own credibility. In the same way we stand strong by allowing an emotional coach to vent his frustrations, then calmly explaining what we have decided will prevail despite all the ancillary and unnecessary theatrics and emotion, seems the best way to be successful with an argument. We get to decide if, or when, any argument becomes excessive, and the rules makers have total control over this question either by acting on it, or choosing not to.

Either you set the tone, or you react to someone else setting his tone and resorting to personal attack, mocking, unsubstantiated accusations and allegations is a lot lower tone than what we are normally recognized as setting. It's a level we need not fall to.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I guess I'm just surprised that someone who tags their offerings with reference to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King would be so comfortable with using the tactics of personal attacks and unprofessional behavior, both of which were used against them.

...

The current rule is a perfect example of a rule being adjusted OVER TIME to deal with the reality previous adjustments created. There was a time where numbers and positions didn't matter. As the game evolved that was changed to reflect the numbering requirements we see today, for multiple reasons including the ability to monitor eligible receivers in light of expanding formations and strategies.

...

Part of the logic behind the current "Exception" was to allow these "better" athletes, whose skill and talents called for their primary roles to be as eligible receivers, to participate in SK formations. Reality is that all rules draw a line, and staying below that line is acceptable while moving a micro distance over the line becomes unacceptable. That's a reality of rules, all rules.

...

Either you set the tone, or you react to someone else setting his tone and resorting to personal attack, mocking, unsubstantiated accusations and allegations is a lot lower tone than what we are normally recognized as setting. It's a level we need not fall to.

Maybe this discussion has gotten too personal.

There is a mechanism by which athletes, coaches, officials, etc. can and have used for decades to petition the rules commitee to make changes to the game and it has worked well albeit not as fast as we would like some time. Good example, post scrimmage kick rules.

Never that I can recall has a proposal to alter the rules gone into the New York Times, ESPN, etc. and yet the game has survived.

Coach Bryan is passionate about his evolution and it probably does have benefit for small schools but then again there are 6 and 8 man rules to accomodate those schools and most states recognize there are differences in school sizes, therefore, schools are placed into classifications for competitive reasons. One would hardly expect Piedmont to challenge Concord Delasalle even though they are geographically close for just that reason.

Coach Bryan had approval, yet, he seeks to thrust his evolution upon the masses largely through coercion via the media and that is not a personal attack but does question why he could not work through the system just like every other rule change.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Maybe this discussion has gotten too personal.
Coach Bryan had approval, yet, he seeks to thrust his evolution upon the masses largely through coercion via the media and that is not a personal attack but does question why he could not work through the system just like every other rule change.

That may be because Coach Bryan isn't looking for a rule revision. His position, which has thusfar not been opposed, is that his "idea" complies with current rules. His reaction seems a response to try and negate all those who have unilaterally decided it to be in violation of the current code.

There is significant speculation that the extent of opposition to this strategy will, or at least should, expand or revise the current rule, or official interpretations, to address this innovation, which has yet to be officially declared illegal. Until the Rule makers speak, everything is just speculation and opinion, and we can only hope the discussion keeps a civil tone.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

All this flack about, "What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting?" is all a matter of perception, and not all perceptions are alike. Does the A-11 offense seek to exploit the current rule on "Player formation and numbering requirements NF:7.2.5.b.exception)? Absolutely, is that necessarily a bad thing? That all depends, on whether the rule makers decide the intended exploitation crosses the line.

Another reason you know little or nothing about football if you truly believe what you are actually saying. The rule was put in place to allow players that would not normally play in certain positions and were the more skilled players to play during special teams. The rule was not put in place to run on a regular basis. I do not care if it is a bad thing or not, Kurt is using a rule to exploit an unintended purpose the rule was put in place for. If exploiting a portion of the rule is a bad or good thing that is for the NF to decide. But for the record, many states have already outlawed these offenses and that will not likely change a lot because they feel the offense is taking an unnecessary advantage of a situation.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Part of the logic behind the current "Exception" was to allow these "better" athletes, whose skill and talents called for their primary roles to be as eligible receivers, to participate in SK formations. Reality is that all rules draw a line, and staying below that line is acceptable while moving a micro distance over the line becomes unacceptable. That's a reality of rules, all rules.

Games (of which HS football still is) are often played staying as close to that line as possible, without stepping over it (ie. exploiting, circumventing, pushing, expanding, etc). Pushing the boundries of current rules often causes the rules to expand when the decision is made that expanding the current rule is better, for the game, than rigidly enforcing the current version. (Exampled by Rosa sitting and Martin walking)

You really need to stop trying to compare laws that affected people's liberty, to a rule in a football game that if the NF was abolished tomorrow would not make a bit of difference in many people's lives. The facts you keep bring that up in this context takes away further your position and how little you know about this matter. You obviously do not know the difference between a disagreement about a rule and how that plays into professionalism, so stop trying to compare apples and oranges. To compare a singular football rule to civil rights is absurd on so many levels, to explain it to you would be futile.

Originally Posted by ajmc

What some may honestly view as a travesty, it appears Coach Bryant may view as a continuation of the purpose of the current exception to allow "better" athletes to participate in more opportunity. He may be wrong, may be dead wrong but being wrong doesn't make him dishonest, deceitful or some evil element worthy of personal attack. Until the rule makers declare it wrong, it isn't automatically wrong.

Here is why you do not know what you are talking about. Kurt has claimed on many occasions that his offense did not allow for serious injuries in football, that small schools could compete against bigger schools and that officials loved to work the offense. Here is the problem with all those statements, those are not really true.

First of all you have to take more than a 2 year experiment to claim that players are prevented from serious injury because of your offense. Then the article that he referenced, said "Spread Offenses" made the game safer. And it would help if you had more than one team to bolster that claim. There was no study referenced or the findings in the research which any social scientist or medical scientist would require before making such a simple claim. Then that study would be up for peer review and you would need to be able to repeat the study over and over again based on the methodology of the study. None of those things were shown or proven by Kurt.

Then he claimed that the NF "Approved" his offense. That was not true at all. He even claimed on another website that my state "Approved" his offense. Both were the furthest thing from the truth. All the NF did was give information to Kurt that he was legal under the current rules. And soon after, states across the country started to outlaw the offense by saying that it was outside the spirit and intent of the rules. Then my state only told us what to look for and how to officiate the offense. The IHSA never suggested the offense was "Approved" but said that if they are not perfect, to call infractions on the offense if players do not set up right or they do not pause for the appropriate time before the snap. And the one team that ran this offense that I know of in the state, lost their first 3 games to decent teams. They ran through their conference which they had already dominated for years (they are the only conference where everyone plays each other twice), then lost in the first round by a blowout. And when it was clear that committee members were talking publicly about their feelings on the offense, Kurt made it sound like the NF Committee Chairperson had clearly "Approved" the offense and it was a done issue. Which is why people have constantly asked Kurt why he needed to write a paper to the NF if the NF had already “Approved” the offense?

I was also in a Newspaper Article from the Chicago Tribune back in September when a reporter called me after I had worked a game between a team that ran the A-11 Offense and a conventional offensive team. There were many articles written by the Chicago Tribune and I was referenced as an official and Kurt was referenced and a NF Committee person was referenced. It was clear then that the NF was clearly going to review the issue when they got a chance if you read the quotes of the NF Committee person. And it was clear that even my position I did not have a major problem with the offense as an official enforcing the rules, but there were some people that were going to change the rule if you read the article.

Kurt also claimed that he was not selling anything or trying to benefit in anyway. The article here shows that to not be true on any level.

Originally Posted by ajmc

When you drift from expressing opposition to this, or any, situation, as it applies to the nature of the game to personally attacking, mocking and demonizing the individual who happens to hold a different perception, you weaken your own credibility. In the same way we stand strong by allowing an emotional coach to vent his frustrations, then calmly explaining what we have decided will prevail despite all the ancillary and unnecessary theatrics and emotion, seems the best way to be successful with an argument. We get to decide if, or when, any argument becomes excessive, and the rules makers have total control over this question either by acting on it, or choosing not to.

You keep talking about attacking and mocking, but I would like you to show one comment I made where I did that. If attacking by your definition is challenging someone's words that they put on a public forum, then I am guilty as hell. But in my opinion you are not attacking someone personally when you are pointing out the holes in their argument or take a different position. If the first thing is out of bounds, then you need to go away from here right now. We debate rules and interpretations all the time and there are hardly ever personal comments about the person, unless it becomes an issue with their integrity. And in this case Kurt's intergrity has been in question because he has constantly said he was not selling anything. And all the comments I have read have pointed that out and did not say much about Kurt personally. But when you lie about your position and you use other people to misrepresent that position, then people have every right to point that out. I am sorry, but that is life. And there is nothing unprofessional or out of bounds on this site or in the world of officiating to make those kinds of comments or claims. Kurt has put himself out there to allow people to comment on his positions. If he did nothing but stay away from officiating sites, then he would not have to worry about what we have to say about his offense. This is all caused by Kurt.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Either you set the tone, or you react to someone else setting his tone and resorting to personal attack, mocking, unsubstantiated accusations and allegations is a lot lower tone than what we are normally recognized as setting. It's a level we need not fall to.

Lastly you have admitted that you are a second year official. You have very little posts on this site. You clearly do not understand history and you clearly do not know what is professional. I have been here for a little over 10 years (longer than my start date says BTW) and I have been officiating much longer. It is never unprofessional as an official or coach to point out the motives of a person when they have lied and misrepresented other people's words or positions or have said one thing but cannot back up those claims. I have been on the receiving end of comments before and the comments here are extremely tame compared to comments made to me and others on many other disagreements. If you do not like the way Kurt was treated, that is your right to feel that way. But you are not the moderator of this site and you clearly are not educated (is that a personal attack ) on what has been said just about this issue alone. You even admitted such a thing in previous statements.

Peace

[3SPORT]

Great post JR!

Kurt - Still no answer to my question posted?

[JugglingReferee]

This thread has gotten WAY of topic. The biggest clue is when Rut writes a novel about black history and someone's view of topics include personal attacks.

Mods, please shut this one down.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This thread has gotten WAY of topic. The biggest clue is when Rut writes a novel about black history and someone's view of topics include personal attacks.

Mods, please shut this one down.

When people are uneducated about many things and bring up a particular topic, they need to be set straight. If you do not like my response, you do not have to read them. And when someone compares a completely unrelated issue to another (disagreement about a silly rule), that also needs to be made clear. That has nothing to with Black History, that has to do with someone's ignorance (which means they are unaware or uneducated) about the words they speak.

Peace

[mick]

Have a good year and be well.