Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not going to apologize, take back, modify, tone down anything that I have said. I stand by my words on this topic and just about every other topic I choose to talk about. You will just have to be upset for much longer.

I do not work for you, I do not work with you, and you do not live where I live, you do not share my values and honestly I do not care what you think. Actually in the end you are funnier, because you actually believe what you say is going to make a difference. What you need to do is grow some sack and you might just learn something.

Peace

Wow!, I guess my assessment was spot on. Considering your insistence to, "stand by my words on this topic and just about every other topic I choose to talk about" I shouldn't be surprised by your reluctance to, "apologize, take back, modify, tone down anything that I have said". I guess never admitting you just might be wrong about something, has it's advantages, at least in the short term.

I doubt very much I would ever consider hiring you, have no inclination to work with you, have visited where you live and have no desire to live there and feel very fortunate not to share your values.

I'm always willing to learn something though, just what is 'sack" and when it grows, where does it grow?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Wow!, I guess my assessment was spot on. Considering your insistence to, "stand by my words on this topic and just about every other topic I choose to talk about" I shouldn't be surprised by your reluctance to, "apologize, take back, modify, tone down anything that I have said". I guess never admitting you just might be wrong about something, has it's advantages, at least in the short term.

I doubt very much I would ever consider hiring you, have no inclination to work with you, have visited where you live and have no desire to live there and feel very fortunate not to share your values.

I'm always willing to learn something though, just what is 'sack" and when it grows, where does it grow?

If you had one, I would not need to explain it to you.

And I do not need to apologize for telling the truth. Kurt lied, misrepresented and mislead people to believe things that were exposed. And if you do not like this fact (which you have not shown anything we said was not true), then you will just have to deal with it. And when we are not talking about lies or misrepresentations, we have the right to feel something is illegal, not allowed in the game or improper under the rules. That is what we tend to do here, discuss things on multiple levels. Stick around you might just realize that one day.

This is why people say truth obviously hurts sometimes.



Peace

[TXMike]

Much as I have disagreed with Rut over the years on issues, I have to say that he came into this A11 thing with an open mind if you go back and look at the earliest posts on the A11. Then, he actually saw it and apparently even participated in some media review of it. Based on that and other involvement he has had, he has now come to the conclusions he has re KB. I would say that he probably is better poised than most (including me) to comment on the mess so I will take what he says over the newbie, possible imposter.

[ajmc]

I'll try one final time, I do not have any problem with your, "right to feel something is illegal, not allowed in the game or improper under the rules", or your right to comment on any of that. However you really don't have any right, and should know better, than to accuse someone you disagree with of lying (as opposed to simply being wrong or inaccurate), or some ulterior motivation based on your own speculation and suspicion.

You can make your point (I submit) more effectively stating your case based on your position. If, in your judgment, someone you disagree with deliberately, "misrepresented and mislead people to believe things" that you believe are not true, your argument would be a lot stronger attacking what was said, rather than going after the messenger at a personal level, and you can avoid needlessly getting muddy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'll try one final time, I do not have any problem with your, "right to feel something is illegal, not allowed in the game or improper under the rules", or your right to comment on any of that. However you really don't have any right, and should know better, than to accuse someone you disagree with of lying (as opposed to simply being wrong or inaccurate), or some ulterior motivation based on your own speculation and suspicion.

You do not know the definition of a lie is, if you believe that. As I said KB told us (several times and on more than this board) that the National Federation "approved" his offense. There were several statements from National Federation Football Board Members that not only said they would do what they could to outlaw this offense, they went ahead in their respective states and outlawed the offense anyway before the issue was to be reviewed. And then KB said the NF Committee Chair said the offense was "approved" but people found statements from prominent members of the NF Football Committee that said they would review the current rules and see if they needed to change the rules. Even in the Tribune article that I referenced, a person with the NF said they would have to review the current rules to see if this follows the spirit and intent of this offense. It was clear the NF did not "approve" the offense and at best they told him under the current rules this was legal. But there is no record or evidence that the NF ever signed off on the offense as if they would not change the rule or that it did not violate a basic principle of the rules. I am not just saying this, people contacted their representatives and contacted prominent people on the NF Committee to prove what KB was saying was not true.

My state also addressed this issue and KB said that my state also "approved" the offense. Also not true. What my state did was remind us what the rules were and made sure that we made sure that any time running this offense followed the current rules like 7 yards behind the LOS, properly setting up on the line and setting up off the line. And we were told by our head rules interpreter that if the offense was not executed perfectly, flag them for violations because the entire intent of the offense was to deceive the defense by using a loophole in the rule. The Head Rule Interrupter is an assignor and I work games for him, this was discussed at an association meeting that I belong to.

And those were just the big examples. Not to mention the claims of being safer (no study), or that he was not selling anything (the last post proved that was not true) and that officials all over the place approved or had not problems running the offense. Again, not true. And you can go to the NF website and see those claims as well.

I do not know about you, but if I said I worked a State Final and it was proven that I did not work a State Final, that would be a lie. And people here would rip me for it left and right. It is the same concept and people would have the right to call me a liar.

Originally Posted by ajmc

You can make your point (I submit) more effectively stating your case based on your position. If, in your judgment, someone you disagree with deliberately, "misrepresented and mislead people to believe things" that you believe are not true, your argument would be a lot stronger attacking what was said, rather than going after the messenger at a personal level, and you can avoid needlessly getting muddy.

I am not telling anything I believe, I am telling you something that has been proven. The information that I said to you has been verified by more than just a few postings online. There have been articles written, official statements made and even on my website comments are still there and public to officials. And all my comments fall in the lap of the person that represented these claims to everyone on this site. I do not recall that anyone else went on a campaign to try to convince officials and coaches what the position of the NF was and what states were doing. Actually, most of us did not even know of this offense until the creator went on a rampage on multiple websites to give information.

I am still waiting for one bit of evidence on your part that suggest that any of this is not true or unprofessional. Tick....Tock....Tick......Tock........

You have to do more than just say you do not like it. And if you have the stones to stick around a little longer, you will see this kind of interaction is very common on this site. People cannot just say what they want and expect others here to just not take on their claims. And that is the way it should be.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The Head Rule Interrupter is an assignor and I work games for him,

That sounds like a cool job. Is it hard to talk to him, does he interrupt you all the time while you're speaking?



I'M JUST KEEDING!

[ajmc]

Yes, I know what my definition of a lie is. Are you so sure of what someone else meant by the word "approved" that you would brand him a liar because you've spoken to several other people who might hold a different understanding of what "approved" might mean to them?

If your sources say all kinds of things that they are considering doing, does that change the fact of what currently is? What current "is", happens to be that this A-11 offense has not been declared illegal at the NFHS level, which could reasonably be interpreted to meanit is legal (accepted, appropriate or approved).

Does having a different understanding of what someone might have meant make that someone a liar for having a different understanding, or just that they may have misunderstood? Your "State" had the opportunity to render this formation illegal, and apparently choked on that decision. Why?, probably because they can't identify where it violates any existing rules AS WRITTEN, so even though they don't like it, they recognize they're stuck with it, until something changes. Suggesting it had to comply with all other existing rules, says NOTHING. Every formation has to comply with existing rules.

Can you demonstrate where the NFHS has "signed off " on the T-formation? There's no violation of any rules that make it illegal, so it is therefore legal, and as some would understand therefore, approved.

I hate to burst your bubble, but simply because you don't agree that something is accurate, doesn't make another opinion a lie. Neither does the fact that other people might share your opinion. History has proven the majority can often be wrong.

Coach Bryan has expressed his opinion, others have expressed a different perception. Neither opinion needs be deceptive, dishonest or a lie, they're just different opinions, neither of which matter all that much until the rule makers (whose opinions are the only ones that really matter) render theirs.

I've told you six ways from Sunday, I'm not going to have any problem whichever way the rules makers react. If they decide to adjust the current rule to eliminate using the numbering exception for anything other than kicking, I'm perfectly happy with that. If they decide that the A-11 is OK to continue under the present rule wording, I can deal with that. It will likely generate some mechanics alterations, but we dealt with this issue before the numbering exception, and we'll deal with again if necessary.

As I have long maintained I don't think the level of constant precision it requires with the existing formational, motion and shift rules makes it a practical, viable offering. I also believe that should this formation garner the wild support you are so afraid of, a gaggle of smart defensive coaches will design counter measures to render it ineffective.

I also suspect, over time, I may disagree with suggestions made on this, or similar, forums and I hope I'm mature enough to be able to control my own emotions, and present whatever counterpoints I may think appropriate in a civil, serious and reasonably friendly and respectful tone. I've found I have a better chance of being successfully persuasive when I keep emotions in check.

[waltjp]

Maybe it's me, but the tags for this thread have become as entertaining as the thread itself.

Where can I get a copy of that BBQ Hyena recipe?

[asdf]

just for kicks.......

Websters

Main Entry: ap·prove Pronunciation: \ə-ˈprüv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·proved; ap·prov·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French apruer, approver, from Latin approbare, from ad- + probare to prove — more at prove

Date: 14th century

transitive verb

1: obsolete : prove , attest
2: to have or express a favorable opinion of
3a: to accept as satisfactory
b: to give formal or official sanction to : ratify (Congress approved the proposed budget)

intransitive verb
: to take a favorable view (doesn't approve of fighting)



Have at it......