Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebra295

You still don't get it. Its about the insutling behavior of naming a discussion in a potentially libelous manner and other officials treating anyone who doesn't share their opinions in an un-gentlemanly tone. Its not about the A-11, dude! It's about people being so arrogant they keep mis-representing reality at the expense of fellow officials, to satisfy the crushing of an individual. Its about giving officials a bad name for trying to trash the name of a high school coach. Its about "the internet is forever". That's what this is all about, dude. If you have $50K to blow on defending yourself from a libel suit, whether your win or not, be my guest.

I would love for you to try. And then I would use all the comments from the Chicago Tribune article, the NF website, this website and you have clearly not shown one comment here how I have talked about this more than what was said. And remember there is such thing as a counter-suit and I know many officials that are lawyers that would have no problem helping out in such a case.

You have yet to show one comment that I said was not true or was even about a specific person. It is obvious you do not know the law. To be held responsible for libel or defame someone's character, you have to say things that are not true and that malicious. If you are a convicted felon and someone repeats that you are a convicted felon that is not against the law. So if Kurt claims that the offense was approved, and no such action was taken by the NF and people point that out, then it is not something you can find liable for.

We are talking about what people think of an offense. And the person that came here specifically asked for comments on this offense, has made statements that have been found out as false (like he is not making money off of this "product") have been completely proven to have misrepresented the facts. Just because you do not like my comments does not make my comments untrue.

As I said before, I am still waiting for what I said that was not true. I guess I will be waiting for awhile.

Peace

[Tim C]

"If you have $50K to blow on defending yourself from a libel suit, whether your win or not, be my guest."

As we all know from junior high journalism class: "Truth is the defense of libel."

I would cast my vote with the officials who have posted here not an internet graffiti terrorist.

Regards,

[Mike L]

Personally, I'm just waiting for the next installment of the KB fiction series......

"BLIND INJUSTICE". When the heroic coach Kenny Brown discovers his brilliant offense is about to be killed by the new national officiating czar "Texas" Mike, he realizes that all he's worked for over the past years is at risk. Can the devious Mike be stopped before he pushes thru the injust rulings? Can Kenny gather any evidence to back his claims? Can his small-school student careers and the future of football be saved? Can Kenny stay financially afloat until retirement? [/humor off]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No he did not. I am still waiting.

Peace

That's what I figured.

[zebra295]

Rutledge dude! It's your overall body of work of your participation in the potentially libelous Snake Oil Salesman discussion that we are talking about. What is a large grey animal, with huge ears, with a large trunk? Plenty of participants had to ask you to tone it down and yet you keep on trying to justify your ability to be an active participant in that mess? Your continued claims of "tell me what I said", when all anyone has to do is go back and read all the reprimands, make you sound worse and worse by the minute. You appear to keep turning on your fellow officials to justify your position.


Trying to help you out dude!

[Mike L]

You really think Rut can be held liable for what others say by simply participating in the discusssion? If so, that explains a lot of your original position statements. All I can say is, wow.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebra295

Rutledge dude! It's your overall body of work of your participation in the potentially libelous Snake Oil Salesman discussion that we are talking about. What is a large grey animal, with huge ears, with a large trunk? Plenty of participants had to ask you to tone it down and yet you keep on trying to justify your ability to be an active participant in that mess? Your continued claims of "tell me what I said", when all anyone has to do is go back and read all the reprimands, make you sound worse and worse by the minute. You appear to keep turning on your fellow officials to justify your position.


Trying to help you out dude!

First of all I did not call him a Snake Oil Salesman. I did not start the thread about the offense and I never would.

I usually read statements made about the offense (by more than Kurt) and I comment on them, partly because I have worked one of these offenses and I was called for an interview with the Chicago Tribune (which many people on this or the other site saw and asked me about).

If you do not like my words, then do not read them. I will never back down from my comments about this or many topic when I feel I am on the right side of this issue.

You still have not shown a single comment that I said that was not true or about Kurt personally. And if you want to keep repeating this, then you might have more to worry about than I do on the legal front. I have asked you several times to show one comment and you have not been able to come up with one comments. I have been on the record a lot with this topic and finding just one comment would not be hard. I guess this is more proof you have nothing but your comments and you need a little more than that in a legal proceeding.

Also you have to prove damages if people are saying something libelous about you, not your offense or an opinion on a concept.

I am still waiting for that "one" example or link that shows I said something not true or about anyone personally on this topic.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

ajmc,

It is clear that you are your zebra friend; do not know a thing about the people you are talking about. And what you have told everyone about yourself, you also know very little about professionalism or what it takes to get ahead in this thing we call officiating. It is clear you know nothing about me or what I have done in an officiating uniform. It is clear you know nothing about Kurt or the other people that have criticized him or his words. It is clear you do not know the previous conversations and you have admitted you do not know those things.

Also civility is not about letting people say what they want without being challenged. If I say something that I cannot back up or verify somewhere, people here will challenge me. It still happens from time to time when talking about all kinds of topics. I do not get offended or upset. If that bothers you, this place is not going to be for you. And unlike you I use my real name and tell people where I live and my background. So when I say something it is from a place where people can verify my comments. All you are doing is running your mouth and you have not told us anything about yourself or your real name, but you want to come here and preach to use what should or should not happen here. Not only are you a rookie on the field, you are a rookie on this site.

Peace

Mr. Rutledge, with all due respect I don't really think knowing anything about you, or, "what I (you) have done in an officiating uniform" has anything to do with basic manners, unless of course, you fell entitled to special treatment of some kind. There seems to be a lot of things, really clear to you, that look like pure speculation and don't seem to really matter to the original issue regarding the legality and future of what is referenced as an A-11 offense.

I have not suggested, nor do I believe, there is anything improper about challenging anything you may feel uncomfortable with. I would suggest however, you learn to challenge that with which you disagree a lot more civily, as you may find it makes the points you are struggling to present that much more persuasive and receptive.

Who I am, where I'm from or how long I've been doing what we do is not nearly as relevant as whether or not what I'm suggesting makes basic common sense. That, you have to decide, as it relates to you and your behavior. I've tried to relate in general terms simply that some of what has been offered has grown to be excessive, unnecessarily nasty and childish. If you believe any of those descriptions relates specifically to what you have opined, then you might reevaluate your presentation skills, because that is clearly the way some of this bilge has been presented and is being received.

I will tell you this, I've been wearing a striped shirt a lot longer than you and I've never been embarrassed, or ashamed, because I'm entitled to wear one. The fact is the tone and tenor of some of the comments on this topic are disgraceful and serve as an embarrassment to what we do and who we are. The remedy is simply sticking to the subject matter while abandoning all the unnecessary rehetoric. Much the same as we've been trained to do on the field.

When you can't respond to an issue you disagree with without proping your argument up with speculation about personal motivation, deliberate personal attacks, cheap shots and insults, it might be because your argument needs a little more attention to relevant detail and a good time to reevaluate your presentation.

All I've tried to suggest is that you remember that you are speaking as an official and what you say and how you say it reflects on all of us, and a lot of what's been said does nor reflect well. Barking and growling about the spot left on the rug doesn't do a thing to remove the spot.

[UmpJM]

zebra295,

I was wondering, do you know when that show about the hyenas was going to be on the Discovery Channel again? Is it in HD? What is it that makes the hyenas thick and sticky?

While some might consider it the epitome of hypocrisy, not to mention spineless and troll-like, to post on a website for the first time with an accusatory and baseless thread of no interest to those who actually contribute to the content of the forum and reprimand others for posting anonymously while doing exactly that yourself - I simply appreciate your well-developed sense of irony.

Oh, and also the parts about "libel lawsuits" (you slay me!) while referring to your correspondents as "viscous (sic) hyenas" - perhaps you meant that as a compliment.

Despite Coach Bryan's gushingly hyperbolic praises for the "revolutionary" offense he co-developed, it strikes me as an offense whose primary premise is trying to trick the defense regarding who is and isn't an eligible receiver. If a team has never seen it before, it might work a few times. But, it's really pretty easy to read. Oh, and at least 3 of his "Top ten plays" should have been flagged.

What's your dog in this fight?

JM

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Mr. Rutledge, with all due respect I don't really think knowing anything about you, or, "what I (you) have done in an officiating uniform" has anything to do with basic manners, unless of course, you fell entitled to special treatment of some kind. There seems to be a lot of things, really clear to you, that look like pure speculation and don't seem to really matter to the original issue regarding the legality and future of what is referenced as an A-11 offense.

I have no idea how you were raised, but there is nothing in manners that I have ever seen that means I (you or the person next door) cannot disagree with the intent, purpose, positions that anyone takes on just about anything. If you do not like my position on this offense or the facts surrounding what the NF has said publicly or not said publicly, then you do not have to read a single thing I say. And if you are going to challenge my professionalism or anyone's professionalism, then you should have a little more than what someone says on a silly little offense that might not be legal in a month or two.

Originally Posted by ajmc

And if you want that information, then you can do a little research and you can find out. I bet just as it relates to football I have the respect of my peers (not on the internet BTW) that you wish you would hae over the course of your football career (if you last that long).

I have not suggested, nor do I believe, there is anything improper about challenging anything you may feel uncomfortable with. I would suggest however, you learn to challenge that with which you disagree a lot more civily, as you may find it makes the points you are struggling to present that much more persuasive and receptive.

Who I am, where I'm from or how long I've been doing what we do is not nearly as relevant as whether or not what I'm suggesting makes basic common sense. That, you have to decide, as it relates to you and your behavior. I've tried to relate in general terms simply that some of what has been offered has grown to be excessive, unnecessarily nasty and childish. If you believe any of those descriptions relates specifically to what you have opined, then you might reevaluate your presentation skills, because that is clearly the way some of this bilge has been presented and is being received.

Sorry, but who you are, where you are from and your standing in your area means EVERYTHING if you are going to sit behind a computer and tell people what they should or should not say or how they should not act. And you keep saying that someone is being childish, but you have not shown one example of such comments. And if you think it is childish to oppose a particular rule, then this is another example of your lack of understanding. We talk all year about plays, rules, situations, the new rules, mechanics, and those conversations get much more heated than what you have seen here. You are right; this place is not for you.

Originally Posted by ajmc

I will tell you this, I've been wearing a striped shirt a lot longer than you and I've never been embarrassed, or ashamed, because I'm entitled to wear one. The fact is the tone and tenor of some of the comments on this topic are disgraceful and serve as an embarrassment to what we do and who we are. The remedy is simply sticking to the subject matter while abandoning all the unnecessary rehetoric. Much the same as we've been trained to do on the field.

OK big guy, how long have you been officiating? How many college games have you worked? How many State Finals have you worked? Better yet, how many officiating boards have you sat on (in leadership roles)? How many state issued positions do you hold? Based on your positions, you have not done anything that signifies you know anything about officiating. Not when you get upset about what someone says on the internet and the reason they find a rule should be changed or how the game should be called under the current rules. How many officiating classes do you teach? Are you the chairperson of any camps or run and camps as an instructor or clinician?

If I recall you said you only had been at this a couple of years, and now you have been officiating 20 years? Sorry, but your credibility is on the line. But as usual you are not man enough to prove you know more than everyone else.

Originally Posted by ajmc

When you can't respond to an issue you disagree with without proping your argument up with speculation about personal motivation, deliberate personal attacks, cheap shots and insults, it might be because your argument needs a little more attention to relevant detail and a good time to reevaluate your presentation.

Personal motivation is very important in any discussion. If you claim you are not doing something for money, and then someone comes up with links that you are selling a product on the very thing you claim you were not doing, that is an important fact. When you keep saying that "your particular" offense is safer, then you post a media article that claims that "spread offenses" are safer and there is not medical study, no social science study or know athletic study to back up those claims, the person making those claims motives are in question. And they are really in question when you are trying to sell something. Then when it was brought to everyone's attention that the NF was looking for opinions on rules changes and wanted to know if "officials" (and probably coaches) feel that the rules on SK should be changed to the college model. I guess the NF was also childish and insulting someone that created an offense taking advantage of a rule. You need to call everyone that disagrees with you, childish.

Originally Posted by ajmc

All I've tried to suggest is that you remember that you are speaking as an official and what you say and how you say it reflects on all of us, and a lot of what's been said does nor reflect well. Barking and growling about the spot left on the rug doesn't do a thing to remove the spot.

I do not need you to tell me anything. I am an official and I have the right and will continue to speak in any of my sports about rules like I do all the time off this site and on this site. According to you we should not ever discuss anything because your feelings will get hurt.

I know I am still talking to a person that is going to preach, but will not have the courage or professionalism to come from behind the keyboard and say who they are or where they are from. As I said before, this is my real name. I have no problem saying these things on here or in public. Not only is what I have said accurate (you have not proven any comment I have said was not true) but shown how it is unprofessional. It is clear you have no idea what the word "professionalism" means. Because if you did, then you would stop talking in circles about how someone said something that hurt someone's feelings.

Peace

[Ed Hickland]

And I still don't like the A-11

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Barking and growling about the spot left on the rug doesn't do a thing to remove the spot.

I have a question. If I say someone is an idiot, does that make me liable for libel?

[HLin NC]

I'm not but I work with plenty of them and don't know one that would try to tackle an internet discussion board thread. Libel is easy to shout and a helluva lot harder to prove. Besides how do you sue an internet handle? I could be a 15 year old kid behind HLinNC who just happens to know football rules really well. I could be my Dad deciding to have some fun on my son's account- prove otherwise! I might even be my Golden Retriever that is really super smart.

Personally I could care less about the A11 or KurtByran and his own opinion of his offense. I wasn't involved in the Snake Oil thread and am tired of the topic.
Our state has declared it unsportsmanlike so the problem was dealt with. It is evident he's been pushing a product since his appearance on officials message boards. He has chosen to come here. We are no tougher on him than we are our own selves.

A discussion board is for, wait for it........discussion. Since we are defining events, lets define discussion-Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

I appreciate the candor, for or against the offense, but what is MOST IMPORTANT is that respect is maintained at all times.

Like I have said a ZILLION times before, I RESPECT ALL OF YOUR OPINIONS EVEN IF THEY ARE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF YOURS TRULY.

Thanks for all you do each and every Game night handling every football game, it is very much appreciated.

KB

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have a question. If I say someone is an idiot, does that make me liable for libel?

Not if it's true!