Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas
 

Part I:

Have you ever seen a Discovery channel show where a pack of hyenas is tearing at a fresh kill and one gets too close to another and those hyenas start viciously attacking each other, causing the rest of the hyenas to join in?

(TXMike, umpirebob71, BktBallRef, waltjp, daggo66, JRutledge)

That is the exact the feeling I came away with after reading 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". 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.

TXMike's use of this web site as a forum for his own "drivel", has done a complete disservice to every other official who believes in fairness & gentlemanly discussion of football. It is such a shameful posting I truly hope all officials boycott any discussion these participants enter into again. I also hope that anyone who knows who these officials are, does the right thing and reports them to their state association for permanent banishment. 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! Do you understand the fact that officials need to be neutral on any topic and your behavior of character assassination destroys the credibility of officials as a whole?

As someone who is deeply disturbed by TXMike's discussion and its impact of the reputation of officials, I printed all 35 pages of the reprehensible discussion and shared it with several friends over football yesterday. After a little research online, our thoughts are as follows to purposefully take on the other side of this pack's arguments:

1. It is overwhelming apparent by their own comments, the individuals who are the most bitter about the A-11 Offense on this discussion board have never seen it in person. Yet, they feel they have the expertise to pick to pieces, the conclusions of the individuals who have spent the time to go to Piedmont and learn what the A-11 is all about. Once again, the hyenas attack anyone who has a positive lean towards the A-11 Offense. In a follow up posting about his ESPN Article "Shock To The System", the author David Fleming says he "got to spend a week" with the coaches (ESPN Page 2 - Fleming: The innovative A-11 offense). Jere Longman of the New York Times visited Piedmont and said, "Whatever one thinks of the offense, it complies with the current statutes of the National Federation of State High School Associations. And it is as entertaining to watch as it is radical in design." Its interesting these professional sports writers for major publications traveled to Piedmont to see what everything is all about and came away with positive outlook on the A-11 Offense, yet they are mercilessly attacked as a "stupid sportswriter" by TxJim and those who have never made the effort themselves. These officials must subscribe to the theory that "to hate from afar" is more credible than to "see for yourself".

2. From TXMike: "At the most basic level, our purpose and charge is to prevent 1 team from cheating against another. When one of those teams unabashedly and deliberately cheats, it is going against our basic purpose, especially since there is little we can do to stop it. Folks can try to parse this and call it a "loophole" or call it "innovation" but an ethical coach would not deliberately cheat in this manner. It all comes down to what is the intent of the rule, and not even KB will argue that what he is doing is in accordnace with the intent." TXMike, you are so incredibly wrong in this flat out accusation that Kurt Bryan, a respected coach at one of the top academic high schools in Northern California, is "unethical" and "cheating", especially since the A-11 operates legally by rule in his state. This is a sad example of one person's blind hatred overflowing into perpetuity on the Internet, creating a black eye that reflects badly on all officials in America. Calling a coach a cheater. Uncouth. Shameful. And don't you dare come back and try to say that wasn't your "intent", we know your intent is to destroy the character of a high school coach at every opportunity possible.

4. 3Sport's continuous question to Coach Bryan of "What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting? The formation you are using is the SCRIMMAGE KICK formation and the numbering EXCEPTION to this rule." Quit belaboring the issue and get over it. You answered your own question. The A-11 operates within the rules of the scrimmage kick formation. If the A-11 is legal within the rule, Kurt Bryan does not have to answer "your" interjection of the "spirit and intent" into the equation. Your definition of "spirit and intent" is merely that and if you don't get the answer you want from him, you will keep attacking him. On another note you have so thoroughly undermined your own credibility with personal attacks, including the phrasing of your questions itself, with the "rule you are exploiting", why should anyone owe you an answer or bother to acknowledge your existence? Its almost laughable there is so much anger about this offense being run from those who have never seen it in person.

5. Easily officiated. The coach at Saddleback says most of the officials in LA who worked these games had a positive outlook after and there doesn't appear to be a single complaint from officials who have worked any of the 20 games Piedmont has played. The 50 year veteran and head of officials in their region says, "I think good high school officials can handle this offense". That pretty much says it all. Why would anyone question the perspective a man with 50 years experience in a major football region? There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the A-11 can be officiated properly in multiple states and after seeing it operate in person, you can come away with a positive attitude about it. It's looking like any contention that the A-11 cannot be officiated as rationale to ban this offense is quickly becoming a dead argument.

6. No respect for Kurt Bryan? Oh that's right, its because there is so much hatred of him making money on his book and videos and "pimping" an offense. And this doozie from (dago66), "My take on this (ESPN Article) is that sales are low and Kurt is trying to make a few bucks for Christmass so he managed to work his con game on a writer for ESPN." Or how about this one from asdf, "The outcry started when he tried to use the (forum) sites as a conduit to sell his product". Does anyone have an example of where Coach Bryan tried to sell his product on any forums? It seems like he has been making himself available to answer questions in the forums and is met with the type of behavior from anonymous individuals exuded in the Snake Oil Salesman discussion. This fact speak for itself and it does not line up favorably for the hyena pack. (Ajmc) puts it perfectly with his posting, "You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition. Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position."

Part II
 

7. If coaches make money on an offense do they lose all credibility? More importantly, does the question of whether coaches make and sell videos and playbooks even have a place in an "officials forum"? The fact this argument is even mentioned is pettty and completely unbecoming of officials and there is a serious malfunction on the part of those who continue to pile on about this topic. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe there are a lot of coaches and officials interested in learning about this offense and therefore there is a need for an A-11 Installation Manual? If so many manuals have been sold (in your own mind), there is complete justification for creating these learning tools. Are you also so absolutely arrogant to think one of the top magazines in the football Industry, American Football Monthly, has no clue what they are doing by developing and distributing the A-11 materials? Have any of you counted how many coaches have created videos about what they do on the football field? Here's a link: (https://americanfootballmonthly.secu...e.php?site=AFM) Count up the number of coaches selling videos and try to tell us your argument isn't completely stupid. Should I hate the spin offense because coaches sell videos about it? Here's the bottom line. You don't know these people, but are willing to attack them for any reason whatsoever and once again, it only makes you look bad and tarnishes the image of us other officials not involved in your bitter crusade against the A-11.

8. More from the "is this appropriate for an officials discussion board", asdf's comment about Coach Bryan that "for the record.....I think he's a phony. (hee keeps proving this) And taking a page out of his "book", I have talked to plenty of coaches that think he's a phony as well." Once again more personal attacking with comments that make you look terribly stupid and referees look incredibly bad. If a coach goes 7-3 and 8-2 over two years running a new offense, helps his team compete against superior opponents, is basically the cover story for ESPN The magazine, has a prior ESPN Page 2 article, makes page 1 of the NY Times and is featured in the NY Times year of ideas and has also been featured on NPR 4 times, is this coach really a "phony". Does he have such power that he can, in the words of dago66, "work his con game on a writer for ESPN"? How about the fact that Riverside Brookfield won their league using the A-11? Saddleback Christian 10-0? Piedmont 8-2 with play-offs the last two years. Sounds like a true phony to me!

Well I'm sure the hyenas are sharpening their fangs to tear at me and this posting, but I highly suggest that if you have any balls whatsoever, you quit hiding behind your anonymity, post your name, address, phone number and e-mail address at the bottom of your posting for all to see. You have already lost so much credibility (for us all) that to reply with your anonymous screen name will only hurt your cause further. But you probably won't do that with the possibility of a lawsuit for libel hanging over your head (TXMike) - good point (newmdref)! We knew the "spirit of what you meant" below was "libel".

"Some of the comments made about the individuals who have come up with this offense are slanderous in nature and if you think they are not monitoring this any many other websites like this one your sadly mistaken, especially since so much is at stake for them. The title of your thread in its self makes a slanderous inference. I only bring up the slander issue because I had a family member who started and ran a national subscribed website, un-related to sports, and was shut down, sued and even subscribers were sued for comments similar in nature to the ones being made on here. Just letting people know to be careful about what you say about an individual on a public forum thats all."

------

Definition of Libel from Webster's Dictionary:

1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought barchaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

It is clear to me, that you have not been here very long. You have been here two posts at the time I am responding and you clearly have no idea the history of this discussion or the purpose of this site. This site is not for coaches to push their offense. This is an officiating site that discusses rules. We discuss rules in detail. We discuss all the time the validity of rules and what should be changed or not changed. The only difference in this discussion is that a person is trying to "sell" a product and keeps posting on this site and others to justify why the rule should allow what many feel is a violation of the basic principles of the rules.

You have made several comments like people have not officiated the offense which is not true. I have and there was nothing special about this offense that the rules should not change the rules to outlaw it. And being an official that works many sports, it is common that a loophole or something not intended by rules are changed to close those loopholes. This situation is not exception.

And if you do not like the opinions shared, then you need to find another site for your comments. This site certainly is not for you.

Peace

Part iii
 

Rutledge, You don't get it do you? Read the posting again point by point. There is no justification for any of the horrific character assassinations you participated in. You were probably pissed your user name was mentioned directly. This is not your exclusive domain to spread vile comments about others.

What does character assassination have to do with someone coming here and trying to sell their offense?

No one told Kurt your anyone to use their real name. No one told them to come back repeatedly to make claims, then when those claims found holes in them (studies about safety, claims of approval by the NF which were not true). You obviously do not know what character assassination really is. Almost everything that was said in opposition to Kurt on this site came from claims he made that are not true. Then he used information to justify things that were also not proven.

If you do not like that, then Kurt should have never used his real name or kept coming back. Also similar claims have been made on other sites by Kurt and many people here have read all of them. And people have asked Kurt legitimate questions which he has not answered, but keeps coming back here. Kurt could have stayed away and left it alone. He chooses not to and that fuels the fire when he makes more "claims" on top of what was already said. No one put words in Kurt's "mouth" on this issue.

And Kurt also claimed he was not selling anything (several times) and it was discovered that was not true.

If that ticks you off, posting this is not going to change that, but highlight the flaws in your and Kurt's argument.

It would not surprise me if you are Kurt trying to use another name to show cover.

Peace

Zebra 295,
Who put you in charge to lecture and chastise other individuals?

For over a year, the "coach" in question has gone on numerous officials discussion forums arguing for acceptance of his system and for what reason? He needs to wise up, accept what he has received from the forums' officials and take his product argument elsewhere. It gets old and aggravating especially when he is given responses that he doesn't like and yet refuses to answer some basic questions.

My suggestion to you would be to contact this "coach" and encourage him to take his discussion elsewhere as I'm sure that most are tired of hearing about it from him. If he or anyone else doesn't like the hyenas, then quit going around them.

Calling us a pack viscous (sic) Hyenas isn't libelous? By the way...it's spelled V I C I O U S. If you're going to attempt to insult me, spell it correctly.

Total BS Jaybird. There is no basis for any personal attacks like what happened in the Snake Oil discussion. My points were very clear. The basis of this posting comes from the disgusting behavior of everyone involved in that discussion. You should be a little more concerned with how bad they made you look.

I read through that discussion 20 times and Kurt Bryan was met with nothing but hostility. I've seen him attacked on Coach Huey and several other sites exactly as what happened in that discussion. I've seen flat out lies about the A-11 offense, such as ineligible players supposedly being illegally down field in videos etc. What do you think the result of a constant barrage of rumors about an offense based on 11 eligible players that constantly runs ineligibles by formation down field would be? Probably a quick ban. So why shouldn't he have joined these discussions to set the record straight?

A bigger question, why haven't any of you takes the opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of the strategy to make yourselves better prepared in case you officiate this offense?

Thanks Bob. Didn't know you were one of the ones included in that forum, but if you want to be included so be it. Thanks for the spelling correction.

Kumbaya my friends.

Rutledge
 

"I also hope that anyone who knows who these officials are, does the right thing and reports them to their state association for permanent banishment. 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."

Once again Rutledge, Nothing you said above justifies your behavior. Ready to give up your name so we can forward over the 35 page pdf of the vile discussion you participated in to your supervisor? I'm sure he'll be interested in talking with you about how you behave towards FED coaches online.

I think I speak for many, if not the vast majority on here, in saying that we frankly don't give a rip about your assessment of TxMike, JRut, or any of the others you mentioned. This isn't your forum, so if you don't like what is said, LEAVE.

So if your point is to gain support to chastise those individuals, please give it up.

Give up on your self-serving, self-righteous crusade. It served no purpose for this "coach" to ever bring this subject matter to this or any other officials forum. As for any belittling or demeaning references, that tends to happen when an individual will continue to argue his case even after he has received input and has angered those he inquired.

If you are an agent or ally of this person, I would suggest that you drop your campaign as you will not reform the masses and could subject yourself to some of the same ridicule.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm thinking that JRutledge is his real name. Before calling out others, why don't you tell us who you are Zebra295? KB has had no problem defending himself in the many discussions here. Why have you self annointed yourself as his savior? I'm pretty confident that you are not a football official. We have had much more heated discussions on this board than those involving KB and the A-11. I have not read one personal attack in that thread, yet people are so appalled by it. The issues have been attacked, but not the person. The fact that KB is admittedly trying to gain financially from this is a significant point that is subject to attack and discussion.

He came here to discuss the A-11. Some people had different views, which they are entitled to have! We have argued many rulings and many plays on this forum. This one has been no different. Many of us, myself included HAVE studied EXACTLY how to officiate this formation. It is my OPINION that there are many issues that make if difficult to officiate CORRECTLY according to the RULES. 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?

You post your name, address, etc. first. Many on this site know who Rut is and know who I am. Who are you? Not that I really care, but those who live in glass houses.

Oh, and I couldn't get through all of your multi-post diatribe. Brevity always wins out over diarrhea of the keyboard.

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. ;)

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

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).

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

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.

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

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. :D

Peace

~Sigh~
 

Posts #1 and #2 in this thread tie for the dumbest posts ever made on the internet.

Regards,

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.

Hmmm...so ajmc posts that everyone should treat everyone respectfully, and then follows up with this personal attack on asdf.

Pot meet kettle...kettle, pot.:rolleyes:

Then you proceed to preach 5 paragraphs on what "it" is.

Name calling, viscious insults??? I now see what "it" is.......

"It" (you) (are) is a hypocrite.


Do as I say, not as I do..... I guess you are not worried that the kids that google this thread may see that.


This is too easy, I'm done with you.... Feel freee to get the last shot in.

Consider yourself................ exposed......... again........;)

Sorry Jaybird, false.
 

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to circle back and address a couple issues with you. First off, this discussion addresses certain behavior deemed reprehensible by many of your colleagues and this discussion is not at your beckoning call to go away. The best way to eliminate this type of topic is simply to behave.

I also wanted to respond to your earlier reply about supposed infractions on the A-11 video, "Upon close video study, numerous IDF, IM, IS and IF fouls are evident". So, heres a question: If you don't want to see Kurt Bryan on your officials discussion forums, why do you keep spreading false information about the A-11 offense? The arrogance of this this comment is unbelieveable and a downright insult to the officials who worked that game. In making this statement you are basically accusing the crew of incompetence for missing "all these calls" that you are supposedly seeing on the video, even though they were working the game in person. This a major area for football in the country and it’s a fact the officials have competently managed the 22 A-11 games properly and without issue. Per the 50 year veteran head of official in the area, it's not an issue! Get over it! To keep spreading these false misconceptions only makes you look stupid in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Once again, another example of more insulting behavior towards other officials.

For the rest of you, good work in continuing to miss the point and solidifying my position.

How in the hell do you know what issues officials may or may not have with a particular team or offense? I worked the offense and I personally called several penalties for players not lining up properly or going downfield when they were not supposed to. Are you trying to say that this offense or players running it never got a penalty? What is your definition of "issues?" And if someone did have issues, what the heck does that have to do with anything said here.

You have got to be one of the dumbest officials (which it is becoming clear you are not an official) I have ever talked to, if you believe that someone cannot watch a tape and see mistakes made by the officiating crew. We discuss plays all the time that were seen on tape those plays and comment all the time on whether the officials were in position or if the official made a mistake in not catching a penalty. That happens all the time in my state alone with state finals games. I am sure I will be on tape about something come summer time. If anyone is arrogant in this discussion it is you. Considering you seem to not know basic discussions that we have here or that we cannot comment on something or someone that keeps coming here (You do not see us going to coach's websites to talk about this issue now do you?). And I know you are going to accuse me of character assassination of you because I am commenting on your very words and obvious lack of how things work when people share opinions.

Dude, you are not going to change the things people say. If Kurt does not like what people say on this board, then he better not come here time and time again (All you need is the "Dr. Official" and I would know it was you Kurt). And it is not out of bounds ever to comment on an offense that skirts the rules or someone needs to write a paper to justify why the rules should be changed. And if this was not an issue, the NF would not have sent out surveys asking officials what we think of a rules change to mirror the other levels that clearly outlaw such an offense.

Get over it, go away. Take your little rants to coach's boards where they care about this issue. And the more and more you keep talking about this, the more and more you are not going not have people in the room to keep this rule the same. It looks like you are trying to campaign for an election rather than deal with the facts of the rules or why people have problems with the rules.

Peace

Oh Rutledge Dude
 

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.

Rut, I lost track. Did he ever quote something you said that was specifically out of line?

No he did not. I am still waiting. ;)

Peace

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

~Cripes~
 

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,

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]:)

That's what I figured.

More rutledge Dude!
 

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


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

And I still don't like the A-11:rolleyes:

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

Z295- are you an attorney?
 

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.

misc
 

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 :)

Not if it's true! :D

Zebra, why so hung up on libel? What's your point to all of this? I'm just confused as to why someone would write a tome such as you did.

It is pretty obvious. The guy is either an alias for KB or someone who is tight with KB that wants to get "credibility" pretending to be a zebra. The poster is a prolific writer. That is a clue.

Been a pleasure!
 

Thanks for the compliment TxMike!

Its been a pleasure spending the last 24 hours with all you fine upstanding citizens. Even "KB" made an appearance! As expected this discussion was met with the same tired insults, disbelief that anything written in a public domain could have legal ramifications, complete ignorance of how your actions affect the big picture and of course my favorite: wild speculation about motives and who dunnit!!! On the flip side, compliments to all on doing a marvelous job showing anyone who finds this discussion on Google what pack behavior is all about. All counted, 20 hyenas came in to get a piece of the kill, including one named snausages (I mean snaqwells). Until the next time TXMike, in the next discussion "Lord of the Flies".

You still have not proven any comments by anyone (still waiting) have legal ramifications or that anything said was a lie or wrong. And if you want to avoid how hyenas then you stay away from where they live or roam. I know if I was a coach that did not want anyone to comment on them, I would not go around officials that might not agree with my position. I know I do not go to coach's sites to yell at coaches about rules without expecting a certain response.

And I guess you really did not read the Lord of the Flies, because that was about societal action and going after the weak and has been a huge aggressor to bring this issue to the forefront. No one here knew anything about Kurt until he started coming on discussion boards to give his point of view. KB is not weak and has put himself in a position for people to challenge his opinions. And I will keep saying this because KB was exposed by people using his words. No one had to invent things about KB. They found out that he was selling books and material that he claimed several times in 2008 that he was not trying to do. If you do not want me to keep saying that, then stop trying to suggest that people are saying things that are not true. All you have to do is do a search on the National Federation Website where he has made that comment several times. And he was exposed there too. And some of the worst comments came from people that were coaches, not officials.

Kurt needs to get a better lawyer. ;)

Peace

Dude
 

Thank you Rudledge, dude. Glad to see that after 24 hours you are still the same scholar and gentleman ;)

Does that mean you are going to go away now? :D

Peace

Hmmm,
 

Just to make a small point:

As noted in this thread it is easy to shout "libel" and very difficult to prove.

I doubt the "Zebra" is an attorney (he may of, however, stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for a few nights) as he quoted only the dictionary definition of libel. What he did not include in his work is that libel can only be proven if there is an intentional financial gain or loss.

Courts are very limited in their view of libel.

I would also comment that this thread is a huge entertainment for me.

Regards,

Rutledge, you're actually funny at times. Perhaps in your environment including "how you were raised", shouting and bullying provides some sense of superiority, in my environment it only provides hollow noise. You keep hiding behind your claim to a right to disagree, which nobody but you has argued with, but seem reluctant to address the manner in which you disagree, which seems very much the tactic of a bully.

Volume doesn't add credibility to what you say, and very often is a clear sign of compensating for lack of credibility. Whether this topic is decided, in a month or two and which way it is decided makes little difference to the basic question on how you chose to deal with it.

If you choose to be a an angry blowhard tossing accusations and personal attacks about, that's entirely up to you. How many State finals, College games, etal you've worked won't change the fact you're still an angry blowhard. It's just not imporatant how long I've been officiating, any more than it matters a tinker's dam how long you've been around. Sometimes 20 years experience boils down to just 2 years worth, 10 times over.

I'm comfortable with my officiating experience, and when you get near to the end of it, that's all that really matters. I've always tried to remember that what I do, how well I do it and, perhaps most importantly, how I conduct myself as an official reflects on a lot of other people as well. I'm sure we're both chasing perfection, however, the difference being when I've done or said something really stupid, I actually try not to repeat myself.

Unlike you, I'm not suggesting, not even hinting I know everything, or more than anyone else. Manners and civility are things you learn by the age of 12, if you don't get it by then, sorry but chances are you won't.

You are absolutely correct when you bark, "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", which only suggests that you recognize you are an arrogant blowhard, and like being one. The fact you claim consistency, doesn't add much. I've never intended to suggest anything other than we are what we are, and you have provided a sterling example of how accurate that assessment turned out to be.

Oh please kind sir....before you leave...please edumacate us heathens about the spirit and intent of the player numbering rules and the exception. Please, pretty please, please with sugar on top. We are sitting here at your feet, oh wise one.

We've been waiting for this since Day 1 from KB and all the supporters. Crickets are still chirping. I find that to be the most interesting piece of all of this.

The supporters KNOW that this violates the spirit of the exception and don't care. Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the ethics of these supporters.

I still don't see where you were insulted. We have disagreed, but it's not like any of us called you a jack a$$. If we had, that would be an insult.


Now those look like insults! Maybe you buddy ajmc would like to discuss manners with you.

Why do you care? How do you know whether or not that I may in fact be an attorney?

I didn't think there was any mystery that the player numbering exception was created for reasons OTHER than creation of an offense designed to take advantage of it.

As has been the case with just about every rule or law that's ever been written, once written people try and devise ways around the rule, or law, getting as close as possible without violating it. Sometimes those attempts are successful, sometimes not. When not, the solution is a simple one; modify the rule to cover the attempted circumvention.

One fortunate/unfortunate aspect ALWAYS applies; the rule as written is the rule that applies, and until correction is made, the rule originally written is what counts.

As officials, we should understand, although we are not required to agree with or like any of the rules of the game, but we are expected, and required, to enforce them, as written and officially interpreted. We are entitled to our opinions, but until the rules makers speak or act, those opinions are as valid as any assistant coach's opinion of the spots we mark.

You should not presume that anyone who chooses not to over react and vehemently condemn this, or any, attempt at circumventing any rule automatically agrees with the attempted circumvention. This issue is in the hands of the rule makers, and we will all have to abide with their conclusion, whether we like it or not.

I'm just happy to be nominated.

That's what must of us have been saying all along.:confused:

or an idiot. ;)

Admit it...this is a prank you basketball forum guys are pulling on us now that our season is over, isn't it? ;)

AJMC,

If you do not like what I say, there is a way to not see what I say. If you do not like the tone in which I say it, there is a way to not hear that tone. Obviously no one but your little fake azz lawyer friend is on your side. I have also been here quite a longer than you have been.

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

Nah, we would have done that after our season is over. We're not that creative this time of year. :)

I think this is just too entertaining.

Ah...maybe it's the Volleyball folks then...

You better be careful. If you post too many more times in this thread, you too could become a "Viscous Hyena".

Photo
 

Awesome Hyena photo!

Rutledge Dude!

Don't forget: Barack ran so that Zebra295 could fly.

Rolling about with laughter at this thread over here in the UK.

As to who I give more credence to - I'm balancing a handful of posts and a handful of days on the forum against the thousands of useful and informative posts and years of useful and informative contribution from Forum stalwarts like TXMike and Rutledge. Mmmmm, tricky choice....

Thank God this thread isn't on my 'Notify List'.

It has nothing to do with Barack, it has to do with the stuff you are smoking.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/ack.gif

Peace

Hey, one post was enough to get me nominated. And I was only asking a libel question. :eek:

I like hyenas. They go great with BBQ sauce and beer.

Hey, I have at least three posts in thread and I escaped being mentioned!

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?

Maybe he thought you said "Liberal"...

I prefer seasoning my hyena with a chipotle dry rub and searing it over high heat.

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.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../smilielol.gif

Peace

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.

You do kind of blend in. I thought it went without saying.

... And this is what's printed on JRutledge's signature...

Rosa sat so Martin could walk.
Martin walked so Obama could run.
Barack ran so that our children could fly.

So now we have the answer guys, Zebra295 is a child. Based on his posts, this makes sense. Now bear in mind, I did not call him that, he referred to himself as that.

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.

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.


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

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-th...s/ferecito.jpg

I'M JUST KEEDING!

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.

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?

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 <couldn't approve such conduct>
3a: to accept as satisfactory <hopes she will approve the date of the meeting>
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......:D

Okay. . .
 

Okay Mr. JRutledge. I think that was very good what you just wrote because you justified your opinion and it is reasonable for you to feel that you might have been "misled" on those two big A-11 issues and therefore in your opinion Kurt is a "Liar".

But If I may take the other side and entertain this possibility for a just a minute. You have a high school coach who comes up with a new offense and makes the effort to submit it to the local section and the FED for what he thinks is "approval" to run this offense in the scrimmage kick formation, from the powers that be. And it is a fact that technically he didn't need to submit anything at all because according to the letter of the rule, it could be run "legally".

So this coach, who probably has never submitted something like this to the FED before, and therefore could be considered a "novice in the practice of submitting an offense for approval by the FED", gets a reply that as far as they are concerned it is "legal and can be run".

Then probably happy his offense was given what he thinks is "approval" (DEF per above: to give formal or official sanction to), tells others in the football community his offense was "approved" by the FED.

BUT! For those who are experts in the inner workings of the FED, the offense was really only declared "legal" to run and not "approved", making him totally wrong to those in the know.

WHICH! Caused resentment amongst the experts and got everyone off on the wrong foot, causing highly charged and un-gentlemanly chat room exchanges over time, which has has led us to where we are today! ---- Of course, in addition to that "intent" thing. But could "intent" ever get discussed because nobody could get past the anger over the "legal" thing?

Did a simple mis-understanding of the definition of whether the offense was declared "legal" or "approved" cause all this?


Maybe Obama has a good Hyena BBQ recipe. . .