Daggo
 

I am glad I've struck a nerve with you Daggo66. You continue to prove my point about the vicious pack turing on one of their own. Obviously you don't care to face the fact of your own despicable behavior and prefer to continue attacking and speculating about anything in your path you disagree with. That's fine. I thought I made it pretty clear I am sick of how your behavior makes officials who don't engage in your type of online behavior look bad. That's the whole point here.

"Most importantly I pointed out that a receiver can make himself ineligible by starting out in an ineligible position even if he shifts to an eligible position. This causes the officials to have to keep track of not only who IS eligible, but who IS NOT. Do you understand any of that?"

Correct. But this can happen in traditional football more often than A-11. In the A-11 all the shifting is towards the line of scrimmage shortly before the snap, not "everyone on, then shift backwards". Do you understand any of that?

My first name is in my username. My location (Warren, Ohio) is also listed. Yours, zebra295?

Of course I understand that, but what happens when someone steps back? Do you think that doesn't happen? On any down other than a SKF there is nothing wrong with it, therefore please explain how that can happen in a "traditional" football game. Is anyone who disagrees with you "despicable?" That kind of sounds like a personal attack to me. Should I be on the lookout for hyenas?

Since you referred to me as despicable should I type out the dictionary definition of libel so that I can be as childish as you? BTW I have not proven your point because you are most certainly not one of my own.

Let me make something very clear at first, I do not have a "Supervisor." I am an independent contractor and it is well known that I talk online about sports officiating in many capacities. And I never represent anyone but myself and my comments.

Also if you are going to claim I said anything out of line, can you please post those comments? Can you please post what I said that was wrong or not professional? Most of my comments are about words said and not the person. I have no idea what Kurt motives are and honestly do not care. But when he makes claims that are false, it is my right (as well as others) to point that out. And when you make claims that something is safer, I have the right to point out you have no such study or evidence (other than personal or anecdotal) that backs that up.

There are facts and there are facts. There are ways to handle people saying things wrong about you. I doubt seriously you or anyone can use this as a way to suggest we have assassinated their character. And you have to do a little more than say, "He called me a name."


Peace

I wish I was a moderator for this site. HAHAHA

With that said, I think this one is done.

Zebra, I'll excuse your ignorance. By your comments it's obvious that you don't know the history of events here and on other forums. Kurt has done his share of mud slinging. I'll leave it at that.

Zebra - Since my name was part of this thread, I feel inclined to respond. Yes, I do believe that the use of the A-11 offense is exploiting the loophole in the rule. That is not a personal attack on KB but my opinion. Still a free country to give your opinion.

I still believe my question to him is a valid question, as the discussion on the spirit and intent of rules is part of every officials group I have been involved with.

By definition - exploit - use or manipulate to one's advantage
The A-11 offense?

Since brevity is the soul of wit:

1-The coach in question is exploiting a loophole or taking advantage of a rule, however you look at it. That and what some perceive to be excessive hucksterism don't endear him to certain members of our avocation;
2 -Certain members of our avocation are not shy about expressing their contempt for the advantage-taking or the hucksterism, which doesn't endear them to certain other members of our avocation;
3 -Our respective states are either going to deal with this or not as they see fit, so we'll either have to officiate it or we won't; and
4- We're not going to solve anything here.

I guess the drama is interesting to some and tedious to others.

I guess I should respond since I have a minor role in this mess...

1 question for our new zebra friend (just guessing that you are a football official ?) ...What is the purpose and intent of having a rule in the book that requires players wear certain numbers and the associated purpose and intent of having a specific exception in the book which makes the A-11 "legal"?

TxMike (and others) you just don't get it. It's not about the A-11 offense, it's about basic civility and common decency.

I don't think anyone has a problem with any of the criticisms about the practicality, functionality or potential of the A-11 offense, or the fact that it obviously is intended to take advantage of a gramatical loophole in the SKF numbering exception.

Some of you (a collective you, if the shoe fits wear it) have simply gone too far, way too far in attacking the person you disagree with. The fact that some of you think a coach has, "slung mud" doesn't provide you with cover, or license, to sling mud back. THAT'S NOT HOW OFFICIALS HANDLE SUCH THINGS, or at least not how we're supposed to, or expected to.

Most of us look at incoherent, emotional personal attacks directed at us by stupid fans simply as the input of ignorant, over emotional fools who are way out beyond the reach of their headlights. We, rightly, blow these people off as the idiots and fools they are behaving like.

Sometimes people cross lines without recognizing how far they've gone, and the appropriate thing for colleagues to do is remind them where they've gone to and are standing. Several of you have blown off attempted subtle suggestions that you're way over the line , in expectation that you'd simply realize it and step back.

The "who are you to tell me anything" response is what we should expect from some idiot up in row 37, not from a professional who is trained and graded on remaining cool and calm in the eye of a storm. Yes, this is an "Official's" forum, how about doing yourselves, as well as the rest of us a favor, and behaving like professional officials. If you want to get down into the slop and mire of personal attacks and insults, there are all sorts of other venues that are designed for just that type of interaction.

Throw some water in your face and snap out of it, this BS is getting ridiculous.

TXMike
 

So TXMike, that's all you have to say? Change the subject and ask me a question after instigating:

"one of the most disgusting and reprehensible postings, ever posted on officiating.com or any other football related forum - "The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again."

Is this some kind of lame attempt to justify your posting of that reprehensible Snake Oil discussion, without any regard for how it might affect other officials? I know you are a big "intenet" guy okay, but that's not the topic of this discussion. Its about how individuals have become so bloodthirsty towards someone they have never met in person, they resort to what we have here: a complete loss of perspective and someone stooping so low, as to post a potentially libelous discussion, against a coach from the NFHS, at a very well respected school.

Don't think for a moment TXMike that because this web site has condoned your actions and because you are surrounded by yes-men, that you speak for the majority of the officials in this country. This discussion has hurt the profession because it is entirely based on personal attacks and instigated by the very labeling of your discussion. It's very obvious your discussion was titled "The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again" to invoke behavior equivalent of throwing a carcass in the middle of a pack of starving hyenas, by your fellow cronies. Your arrogance that you have done something for the game of football by cutting Kurt Bryan down and promoting piling on, is just that and a lot of people don't like it. I don't care how long any of you have been an official, I don't care how long you have been trolling Officials.com or coach Huey and I don't care about any of your positions on the A-11. What I do care about is your despicable behavior in discussions that reflects badly on everyone else.

This is what all of you should be addressing:

"For TXMike to think it is appropriate to assassinate the character of anyone involved in the game of football in a public forum, no matter his personal opinion, and watch with glee as his fellow hyenas pile on is a complete and absolute travesty of the officiating profession. Even worse, when fellow officials make mention of their displeasure with the tone and behavior of this "pack" and request a more civil discussion, those officials are met with the same vicious attacks as their target, a high school football coach - Kurt Bryan."

And the big picture in case any of you still don't get it:

"Its unfortunate to think that individuals this vengeful and vicious are officiating games with young adults, then at the same time spewing their hate on the Internet for any of these young adults to see. Are you too small minded to get it? The underage players and parents on coach Bryan's team can easily find this forum on Google and be reading this trash!

Bless me Father for I have sinned.......:eek:

Are you happy with that or are you now going to preach blasphemy to me as well?? :rolleyes:

You have continually stated that you do not know coach bryan nor have you read all of the back and forth amongst many forums. Let me educate you on my problems with the good fiction writer, movie producer, insurance salesman, football coach, great innovator......:rolleyes:

His inital posts were a sales ptich for his "product". He included a link to his product. He then, until recently denied that he had a financial interest in his product.

He also proclaimed that his product prevented serious injuries. He then adjusted his claims that his product reduced serious injuries. And finally he decided that his product produced no serious injuries. No studies were released, no data provided...... nothing.... Yet we were to accept his claims as fact.

My problem is not with the product. In my opinion it is an exploitation of a loophole. Generally, the FED closes such loopholes.

My problems are with the matters that I referred to as well as some of the ones that others have referred to.

If you don't like it, tough. ;)