Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas

[ajmc]

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.

[zebra295]

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!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zebra295

"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!

So what? We may give them our views on someone who has made himself a very public figure?

If I officiated in California in the conference this coach worked, I'd keep my mouth shut. But I don't. And this guy is one nonstop commercial for this offense and he's avoided the one main question many of us keep asking:

"What's the intended purpose of the numbering exception?"

Why don't YOU answer that question?

I haven't seen the A-11, just worked teams that played against it (and blew those teams out). I know how I'd handle it -- I'd work the game and flag every illegal shift, illegal motion, and anything else illegal I saw. Even if it means flagging 20 of them in a game (if the team wasn't disciplined to not commit those fouls). If you're going to run something like this, it had better be 100% right, every play.

[waltjp]

It also bears noting that Coach Bryan came here seeking opinions. I did not go looking for him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If you're going to run something like this, it had better be 100% right, every play.

This was the very thing we were told to do in our state by our head rules interpreter and Kurt tried to misrepresent my state's position. I guess you cannot make that point without being seen as uncivil.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was the very thing we were told to do in our state by our head rules interpreter and Kurt tried to misrepresent my state's position. I guess you cannot make that point without being seen as uncivil.

Peace

It's cause we're "picking on them." Never mind that we flag all the illegal shifts and motions on the other teams.

This, as all things, will pass - one way or the other.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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

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

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......

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.

[jaybird]

So now you are baiting Mike. You have name called and expressed your opinion so now just drop it and go away.

[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]

[ajmc]

I have no interest in preaching anything to you, asdf, because I'm really not sure if it would accomplish anything. You still don't get it. I don't know if that's because you just don't want to get it, or you're not bright enough to understand what "it" actually is.

It doesn't matter what Coach Bryan said, what you think his intentions were or what you think he should have, or should not have done. All you have control over is how you behave, how you react and the image you project. Trying to justify behaving badly because you've decided someone else behaved badly is something you're supposed to outgrow at age 13.

"It" has nothing to do with the A-11 Offense, "it" has to do with how you are behaving in your opposition to something, that just happens to be the A-11 Offense. Anything Coach Bryan does, that you are upset with, IS ON HIM. What he does, or doesn't do, is his responsibility and reflects on him.

"It" has to do with how YOU want yourself perceived by other professional adults who share an avocation with you. Blowing off steam or answering what you consider a cheap shot with another, perhaps even cheaper shot doesn't require any skill. We're all born with the ability to be vindictive and petty, what counts is how well we learn to control those negative instincts and talk ourselves out of responding to them as we mature.

I've already done my part, completed my responsibility to watch your back. I've explained, as tactfully as I can, more often than I was required to do and tried my best to alert some colleagues that they had crossed a civility line and are making fools out of themselves acting like angry teenagers with axes to grind. The rest is up to them (you) whether you want to consider what you've been told, and how you are presenting yourselves, and whether you decide to adjust or simply choose to ignore it (almost like being evaluated on the field).

[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

[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.

[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