Then why did you respond if what I am saying is garbage?

I did not say I was worked up about anything. But your entire purpose the last few weeks was to suggest that people were being libelous or slanderous against Kurt based on a pack mentality. There is nothing wrong with Kurt selling anything, I am in a sales business. But I am also not denying that fact and never have and never will. Kurt claimed he was purely trying to change the game for the better and it was proven that was not the case. All you have to do is a Google search and you will see many products that Kurt is associated with to sell this offense as apart of his claiming the offense has been "approved."

I am sorry, but when you tell people that have insight on this that the NF has approved your offense and after you first make those statements several states outlaw the offense and vow to change current NF Rules, that is a misrepresentation of many facts. And the only evidence you can show for that approval is one quote the Chairperson of the Committee. But you exclude all the other comments from current and past committee members that clearly are not giving their "approval" to your offense. Then you are writing letters or preparing information for the committee for something that has already been "approved." I think Kurt thinks we are all stupid when he does not realize (like a lot of coaches do not know) how rules are changed. Look at every sports specific board and there is talk about new rules long before the committee actually meets to change anything. This comment alone took away a lot of Kurt's credibility and you do not have to take my word for it. Just look at the posts Kurt has taken place in.

You can look directly at the NF Website Discussion boards. This topic was discussed a lot over the last couple of years. Some of the most discussed topics involved this offense and Kurt took part in just about all of them. And many people here are some of the same people that read the same comments on the other board.

The difference it makes is you claim that what we have said and what I have said was out of line. IF you tell a story and it is found out to be not true, I think it is my right or anyone's right to state that you have lied or tried to mislead everyone with information. And the people that have been involved in these discussions have come from all over the world (not just country BTW). And when people in completely different jurisdictions have openly discussed their opposition to this offense and the rules used to allow it, then states follow by making the offense illegal, it is a little disingenuous to keep repeating as if officials all over the place have not seen any problems with your offense. And I have worked the offense and I do see this as possible problem for officials. And when I worked the offense I was working with 3 other state final officials and two of us later in the year became state final officials, so the officials I was working with had a lot of experience and understanding of the game. And the school that I witnessed running the offense, did not use the offense at their lower levels for some reason. And rules are not just for the varsity level, they are for all levels. It does matter when you make claims about who feels what and who they are. Kurt even misrepresented the article in which myself, a NF Committee member were also quoted in our comments as if to suggest that we "approved" or that there would not be review of the rules in the future. All things if you simply do a Google search are not hard to find.

This is not about belief. What I just references is not about belief, those are facts. And the fact that you have yet to show one comment that I made or anyone else made that we were untrue is telling. That is all people have been saying and you accused them of being unfair or unprofessional to make such claims.

Once again, I do not care about best interest of the game or if the offense is legal or not. As someone said, I was very open minded about this from the beginning and tended to be one of the voices that had little problem with the efforts of Kurt. But when he stated lying about facts and statements made by others, he lost me big time. If the NF chooses to not change the rule, I do not think it is going to make that big of a difference, because states will still likely outlaw the offense (more might follow) and I doubt I will see many teams where I am from try it or risk their entire season on such an unproven offense.

This conversation has been going on much longer than you even know. And when this conversation first started (well over a year ago) there were many people that objectively looked at the offense and what it brought. And officials were trying to figure out the premise and the rules that covered it. What you think you know, was long after Kurt lied, misrepresented and commented on things that were clearly not true or clearly proven to not be true. And you still have not shown one thing I have said that suggested that I have misrepresented facts or said anything that was slightly true.

And you are just like Kurt, when asked for specifics we cannot get a straight answer. But you have continually called me names all because I want you to prove what you say. And the main reason I keep responding to you, because I know you are not going to show a single thing that suggest I was out of line or unprofessional. And in the end that exposes what you know and what you not know. You have even said in this recent response, you do not even know the facts or the background.

Thank you for proving my point. That is all I wanted to do. ;)

Perhaps I respond because I don't want the smell of your garbage to taint the stripes of my shirt.

So several States have outlawed this offense and vow to change the current NFHS rules. As we all know, they have the right to do whatever they want WITHIN THEIR STATE. Does any of that make this offense illegal under the NFHS code? I don't think so. Has the NFHS declared this offense illegal, I don't think so. We all vow to do a lot of things that never get done.

If you want to understand what you, and others, have said that was over the line, go back and read what you've written, with an open mind. It will jump up and bite you on the behind.

Are you actually going to play the victim's card, whining, "you have continually called me names all because I want you to prove what you say." Poor baby, you, and others, have been throwing bombs at this man simply because he doesn't share your view of an idea he developed, and when your bombs exceeded the bounds of professional curtesy and general civility that was pointed out to you, your feelings are hurt and your defensive fangs came out.

Understand something simple, because either one of us conclude something, or someone, was wrong, or behaved badly, that is nothing more, or less, than an opinion. I've shared my opinion, regarding the behavior you and others have chosen to demonstrate. You had the options to totally ignore me, and my opinion, consider it and apply it as you deemed appropriate, or defend yourself over and over and over again with the same bully tactics you were applying against KB. Outshouting, bullying, ridiculously trying to rally support usually doesn't work, when you're just wrong.

Nothing has changed on my end, from day 1, you and some others elected to step below the line, and I simply pointed that out. Since then, you, and others have chosen to try and pour gasoline on the fire thinking somehow that would put the fire out, not surprisingly it hasn't and doubtfully ever will.

If you want evidence, it's there waiting for you. Simply go back and read what was written, the tone in which it was intended and if you look with an open mind you will see where the discussion clearly dipped below the line of reasonable taste and basic civility. I can't make you see it if you don't want to look, and I'm sure as heck not going to waste time pointing things out that you have no intention of seeing.

Whatever KB has said, concluded, opined, suggested or inferred that you find improper or objectional IS ON HIM, but that doesn't give you, or anybody else license to insult, accuse or dispariage him in return. Whatever you choose to say in return is ON YOU, and is not his fault, my fault or anyone else's fault.

We've all stepped over the line occassionally and most often correct things by simply realizing we may have, and step back. This nonsense has gone this far simply because you, and others, have elected to ride your high horse even higher, rather than simply step down.

A final point, which seems to escape some, is that this is an "Official's Forum" and, as is always the case (whether we like it or not), how we choose to say what we choose to say reflects on who we are, not only individually but collectively as well, especially when we're dealing with a non official. We all have some responsibility not to embarrass each other.

Rut, I lost track. Have you been shown the example of your poor behavior?

Never mind, I see the examples he provided, and the answer to my question is a solid, "Not yet."

The point is the NFHS never intended the A-11. Unfortunately, I do not have the discussion around the numbering exception and why but one could imagine it was to allow on a scrimmage kick a number other than 50-79 to be the long snapper without having to manipulate his jersey. Not in the wildest dreams was the A-11 intended. The great thing about what has happened with the A-11 is various interpretations have ruled it legal or illegal and almost without a doubt NFHS will fill the loophole that allowed it. Read the proposed changes and it is obvious. My personal hope is somehow the numbering exception is not removed as one member of the rules committee wants to do.

I for one have said Coach Bryan's motivation was suspect and I think it still is. He could have easily run the A-11 at Piedmont there is the hills outside Oakland with the approval of the local officials. So why did he engage ESPN, the New York Times, etc.? You just don't expose anything to the length he has without some motivation. He is a salesman by his actions. He expects some return, albeit, public accolades, his legend, money... To question his motivation is not to insult, it is exactly that, Kurt why are you doing this? And, I have not seen one post where he answers that question completely. Until he does there will be speculation. After all, this is the United States and we have the right to speak as long as we do not defame.

Maybe you should swallow a dose of the medicine you prescribe.

Excuse me, Ed, I cut out most of your superflous BS in the interest of space. To question anyone's motivation is not a problem, and I've never suggested it was. It's when you decide to include your own speculation as answers to your questions, that gets close to and over the line.

Asking a question is not usually a problem. It becomes a problem when you start thinking you can demand answers and everyone else is required to respond to thos demands. When, how and why to respond to any question is entirely up to the person being questioned. Someone may choose to decline to answer a question, because they might think it stupid, leading, not like the tone in which it was asked or otherwise not worthy of answering, which doesn't give the questioner license to substitute whatever answer they might imagine as being possible or presuming what the answers should be.

I'm glad you recognize there is a line drawn at "defame". Although it's not a straight line, the input I found objectionable were the comments that fell clearly over any reasonably placed line.

I assure you Ed, I've swallowed gallons of the medicine I've prescribed and have found it often distasteful and sometimes hard to swallow, but it's ususally proven to be very beneficial. Unfortunately, the malady is never totally cured, it's more a condition you hope just continually keeps getting better and doesn't repeat itself.

Now, taking into account all that you stated above, why do you think he would join an officials forum in order to promote and make those claims?

No, not one time.

Peace

I cut out all the BS, then I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

What did I say that was not true? Are you saying states cannot push to change rules now?

Why not give one example? I do not think you can read.

Not complaining at all. Just showing your behavior for what it is, while being a big hypocrite. BTW it is “courtesy.”

You are starting to get it a little bit (very little). And no one had to rally support for anything, they came to the conclusion on their own volition.

One example might just put out the fire? Because I can give multiple examples of your comments towards me or others that you claim is out of line. I doubt seriously you will find me saying anything like that about Kurt.

No examples still huh?

I have every right to point out what I want to. If I did not have the right, then the people of this site and other sites would have moderated my comments. Funny, you do not see anyone moderating my comments or anyone else's about Kurt do you?

Example please?

I represent me, I do not represent or claim to represent everyone. You obviously do not represent anyone, you have not been doing this very long. ;)

Peace

"The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to dishonestly promote an idea, he apparently believes in will make him money"

OK Snagwells you now have the opportunity to lay out the facts that would validate the changes you've added, and charges you've made, or you can slink back under the rock of unsubstantiated character assassination. Your choice.

Thanks for the spelling correction. You are correct, I don't represent anyone, but I respect those I'm associated with and try not to do anything that would needlessly embarrass them, especially just to try and make myself sound important.

I've been doing "this" long enough to recognize smoke and BS when I come across them.

Snaqs,

Do not answer one damn question until he answers our questions first. He has made claims that there is a pack mentality and that people are being unfair, but he cannot come up with one damn answer to what comments specifically apply to his claims.

Peace

Know you are missing the point. Coach Bryan's initative will fail because has failed to appeal to the audience he needed on the level they play. The Rules Committee is a conservative organization charged with carefully thinking through the rules. The A-11 is an embrassment to them to think they could have missed the loophole. Then Coach Bryan's publicity campaign that will "revolutionize" football is an in your face move. Add to that, reporters from the New York Times and ESPN touting the A-11 while several states are making it illegal.

Coach Bryan should be willing to answer questions, in fact, should solicit questions from this board or other officials organizations and give solid answers to bolster his case. Quoting a 50 year official versus gaining the support of a group of officials would be more powerful. I cannot and will not speak for those beside myself who are against the A-11, the perceived attitude of Coach Bryan to choose not to address our issues is what I believe has led to the negative comments expressed here.

BTW. What you call superfluous BS is actually part of a well thought out response which I wish you would engage rather than writing rambling essays devoid of actual content.

To the point that you cannot give one example of things you consider BS or where the smoke is coming from?

I guess you need to look in the mirror, because all you have said has been total BS.

Peace

ajmc, I'm just curious, are there any direct questions at all that you will answer? Is there a particular reason you choose not to answer the last question I posted?

He'll never answer the questions.


http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

I'll try and answer any rational question, I'm able to answer. If you are referring to your question, "Now, taking into account all that you stated above, why do you think he would join an officials forum in order to promote and make those claims?", I really can't give you an answer because I have no idea why coach Bryan does anything, so I obviously can't apeak for him, which of course, you should have realized before you asked the question.

I have never spoken with him about anything, so why whould you expect me to provide such an answer? Rather than speculate about what he might have thought, might have meant, might have intended, might have wanted to do or accomplish, doesn't it make a lot more sense for me to say nothing?

Read the question again, this time for comprehension. I did not ask you to speak for KB. I asked you to speak for yourself. I asked why do you think he would join an officials' forum in order to promote and make those claims. I am looking for your opinion. It's a valid question. Many of us have stated our opinions and I will be glad to offer mine again. I'm just curious about your opinion and I think it would be interesting.

Ed, My apologies if you consider this response redundant, but I must assume previous attempts were not clear enough for you. I do not particularly care for the concept of the A-11 offense, and never have. There is no question in my mind that this approach is a carefully crafted attempt to utilize the existing numbering exception to accomplish an objective that was never originally considered, so I'm not competent to argue in it's favor.

However, I do not believe that suggesting an approach not previously considered in any way abuses the rule or takes an inappropriate advantage of it. The NFHS apparently agrees that there is nothing in the current wording of the rule that renders it illegal, and that the current language provides a glaring loophole.

The remedy is relatively simple; if the rule makers determine this loophole to be prohibitive they have the ultimate power to close it by ammending the language of the rule. Arguments, many of which seem appropriate and valid, have been aggressively make to support those objections. Expanding beyond relevant objections to include insult, innuendo, personal attacks regarding motivations that are completely and totally unsubstantiated only detracts from the debate.

Regarding the offense itself, I don't see where it violates any current rules, although I believe to be effective, it requires such a high level of consistent precise compliance with several other rules (formations, shifts and motion) to render it impractical at the High School level.

Why Coach Bryan chooses not to answer specific questions, why he has, in your judgment, chosen not to ask specific questions or interact with other official's organizations or address your specific "issues" is totally beyond my vision. I might mention that other contributors to these forums criticise him for trying to interact, and dialogue with officials.

Just a guess, but perhaps the fact that many of his inquiries, or offerings, tend to generate responses that characterize his interests in extremely negative terms and twist and turn his observations into ulterior motivations and subjective accusations may have a bearing on his reluctance.

If you believe his actions, or lack thereof, have been detrimental to his cause that is an entirely rational conclusion well within your grasp. That does not, in my humble opinion however, provide you, or anyone else who may feel opposed to Coach Bryan or his A-11 offense idea, license to question his integrity, challenge his personal honesty, insult, mock or demean him, especially on a forum that is intended to be recognized as a gathering place for professional football officials to share ideas related to the rules and the game of football. It has always been my understanding that we are, and well should be, above that level of petty behavior.

Who are you and what have you done with ajmc?:confused:

Therein lies the difference, I just don't think my opinion of why someone, I don't know at all, might choose to do, or not do, say or not say, something about a matter I have no reason to consider, is of enough value for me to share with anyone. When I usually conclude that I have nothing of value to offer, remaining silent on the subject, seems to make the most sense.

Now I get it, we cannot give opinions (on a discussion board mind you) because you do not know the guy personally. Do you have to go out to dinner with a person to make a judgment on someone's motives when they come to your place to try to sell you on an idea?

I am sorry, but that is not how it works. And you have given your opinion about other people and you do not know them either. I am not sure why the question you were asked is any different.

In other words you are a complete fraud and hypocrite. Thanks for proving that point to everyone with these last statements (Was that a personal attack?) http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing024.gif

Peace

Again, this from the person decrying personal attacks. LOL.

Can you imagine him on your crew. :(:rolleyes:

That's rhetorical, right?

Yep!

I would quit.

Peace

Sorry, you don't get it, or perhaps just don't want to admit getting it. You can make whatever judgments, form whatever opinions, you like. Just because you form an opinion, doesn't require that you share it, dictate how you share it, or whether anyone cares that you've bothered to share it. You are trying so hard, reaching so far, to try and make yourself sound glib, and it just isn't working.

I haven't offered an opinion about anyone, I've just answered a direct question, stupid and leading as it may have been. When I have nothing worth adding, I usually try and remain silent, but I've interacted enough with you to know all I need to know about how best to respond to you, considering all your barking and bluster.

I am a grown azz man, I will share whatever opinion I want to and I do not think you are in a position to dictate how I share those opinions or whom I share them with. You certainly do not have the power to dictate what I say or how I say it. ;)

You have added nothing to this entire board and you have told everyone how to speak, what opinions to share and what questions to ask. It is rather humorous to me and others how you want to preach to everyone on how to speak, but you are giving your opinion too. Though you do not have the balls to answer a simple question when asked by the people here, that sounds awful familiar. Maybe you are just Kurt masking as another moniker. That is an old internet trick.

Call it what you like, but it is true. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...rum/trolls.gif

Peace

Must be the off season. sheesh.

Attaboy Jeff!

It's way past time you began acting like, "a grown azz man", instead of an angry teenager with an over inflated ego chip on his shoulder. Obviously you can't mount a rational argument to what I say, so you bellow about what you think I should mean. Grown azz men don't make up silly "stuff" to suit their needs and they're capable of getting a point across without trying to prop up whatever they are trying to say with a bunch of superflous BS.

All this nonsense started because you didn't like, and just can't accept, that you, and others, let your mouths get in the way of your thoughts and felt it more important to strut your ego than keep a discussion civil. If you want to act like a bully and a blow hard, that's entirely up to you, but you shouldn't be surprised when you're told it's making you look like an azz. Sadly, this ego thing makes a lot of the rest of us look like azzes, simply by association.

It's your parent's job to teach you how to speak, and not my role to make up for what they failed to get across, but when overblown ego and a rampant sense of self importance splashes mud on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out, because you're just not competent enough to realize it by yourselves.

If any of you have some rational question, simple or not, you need answered, and can figure out how to ask it rationally and I'll be happy to answer it. Do us all a favor by not wasting your time asking me to put words in someone else's mouth or to surmise why they did, or didn't do, whatever it is you want an explanation about. That's not my role either.

ajmc realizes that the forum members have him figured out.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN37F...eature=related

:D :D :D

:D
wow, it's tempting to quote the self-appointed moral arbiter of the football forum.

I don't slink, however. This is really simple.

Kurt claimed he was not selling anything.
Kurt is selling stuff directly related to A-11, and his profit potential would be significantly diminished (that means he won't make as much, in case you live in Rio Linda) if the A-11 loophole is closed.

I believe this satisfies both of my assertions.

FWIW, I'm all for making a profit off of an idea; just be honest about it. There's a reason we demand full disclosure from information sources.

People don't trust lung cancer studies paid for by tobacco companies.

It should be easy
 

Well said. Haven't been here in a couple of months, see a thread with proposed rule changes and think "Ooh, neat, let's see what's being discussed."

Gadzooks this whole thread seems a waste of too much effort. :eek:

Want to get rid of the A-11? Limit the numbering exception to fourth down. Allows offense to substitute specialty players to cover the likely scrimmage kick and preserves ability to quick kick on other downs, where it is highly improbable a team would reveal the intention of quick kicking by utilizing the numbering exception.

Why isn't it this simple? :confused:

What if they want to kick on 2nd down or 3rd down? What if they kick is to win the game and the snapper has a legal eligible number?

The most accepted rules change in this issue is to go to the NCAA and/or NFL Language which limits a numbering exception to obvious kicking downs or plays. Doing that alone would eliminate what we know of the A-11 all together.

Peace

Then add the holder-related exception on other downs.

OK, then what if the Left Tackle has been on the Field Goal Unit all season long and you need to kick a FG to win a playoff game, you want to require a player to be in that position that has not played there all year round?

I think the college rule would work perfectly. No reason to make more exceptions to a rule that only needs changing so you make it illegal to take advantage of a loophole found by a team or coach.

Peace

Do you think it's just possible that Coach Bryan is so enamored with his idea that he wants to spread it, and extoll it, as fast as possible as far and wide as he can, and believes distributing tapes, disks and other visual aids is the best way to do that. Such a distribution clearly requires funding, which perhaps the good coach doesn't have access to, so he acquires what he needs to be able to distribute his idea from those who show an interest in his idea.

Then again he could simply be looking to make millions of dollars from the pure sale of his idea. That's just one, of an endless list of alternate possibilities that might be accurate. I have no idea which is correct, but NEITHER DO YOU.

A difference being you have chosen to presume the worst possible ulterior motive, and based on nothing more than pure speculation, whim and conjecture, declare what amounts to nothing more substantial than just pure gossip based on what you have presumed and conjured up through your own imagination.

Is that your idea of acceptable behavior?

And when pressed about it he lied about that fact and claimed he was only doing what he was doing for the good of the game. I have ideas, but I am not trying to sell them. And if I was asked if I was trying to profit on them, I would clearly state that reality if I expected people to not further question my motives. Also, I would not go places that are not receptive to my point of view and continually come back to those places if I know people are not "buying" what I am selling.

And whether we know or not is never the issue. This is why this is called a discussion board and people discuss things. We tend to discuss the motives or coaches, players, committee members, fellow officials, fans or administrators all the time here. And we do so based on our experiences and circumstances that took place in a particular thread or story. If that is a problem for you, then you better be preaching all the time because this issue only scratches the surface as to how things are often discussed here or in our local association meetings.

Honestly, no one assumed anything. We asked a question and found the answer. And all you have to do is a Google search and you will find Kurt's name is associated with all kinds of things are about selling products or the self promotion of this offense. And you do not have to look at this website to find that information. There is nothing wrong with selling things or this offense, but it is not gossip when you find the information on a link. Just like if you were to do the same thing with my name, you would easily find specific information that shows things about me as it relates to officiating and you would be able to see things I am directly involved in. And if I were to claim I was associated with something I was not, it would be exposed easily. And there are many people here that know me personally or belong to the same associations I belong to. I am confronted all the time by people that I know that I post here or ask me am I the same person they see on this site. I am very cognizant that when I say things here, there are people that are watching. If I were to say something that was blatantly false, I would be called on it in so many ways.

Now I can accept that reality and relish in that reality (I have been on here for over 10 years BTW). Why is that something you cannot handle? And BTW, I have had many people over the years try to discredit things I have said, only to find out that I was telling the truth by searching the internet or talking to someone that knows me personally. If you do not want to have people question your integrity, do not come here with your real name and do not say where you live and who you know. It is that simple.

I am done now.

Peace

The problem is that there's a conflict of interest that's so obvious it's silly.

I can deal with that, though. I deal with it everytime I shop for a used car. The difference is, the used car salesman is at least open about the fact that he will be making money off of my purchase.

Yes, I do think it's acceptable to question someone's motives when a glaring conflict of interest has been hidden and even denied.

Kurt Bryan's behavior and yours are both unacceptable.

When will you and Kurt Bryan understand there are fundamentals to the game and a procedure for making changes to the game and that procedure does not include publicizing in the New York Times or ESPN or even writing position papers and degrading anyone who disagrees?

And, for starters try being civil on this forum without resorting to degrading anyone. Most threads on this forum are respectful even when people disagree. Personally, whatever you opine has no credibility because of the descriptive language you choose to bully everyone whose opinion is different. I've learned a lot from listening and being respectful, it is time for you to do the same.:mad:

AMEN!!!!

Peace

No thank you.
I've seen enough of your responses that if I had a question, I would ask someone else.

Excuse me, is this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what I've said that has been so "unacceptable"? Does ganging up on an individual because he had the audacity to suggest something a special few don't like or agree with, is that acceptable? Or when the argument being raised is not gaining sufficient support on it's merits, does shifting to personal attacks, innuendo, rumor, pure speculation and a series of really dopey accusations based on empty hot air, rise to meet your description of acceptable?

Perhaps repeating or cheering for outlandash accusations and repeatedly mocking someone and denigrating his intentions simply because you resent the fact that he sees the issue differently is acceptable to you. Despite the gallons of pure garbage that has been dumped on this subject, by members of this forum, I haven't noticed any disrespect, any insult, mocking or abject sarcasim coming from the opposite direction. I've seen futile attempts at answering a gaggle of obviously loaded questions, being, twisted with absurd, irrelevant nitpicking and shoved back with an arrogance that has been truly amazing, and embarrassing.

Someone else, with a better graphic appreciation for reality than me, characterized the responses, of the few, as the feeding frenzy of a pack of hyenas. For those of you too stupid to know better, that wasn't a compliment.

I have not criticized anything, anybody has said regarding any fundamentals of this approach as it applies to the game I have repeatedly indicated that I personally doubt the A-11 approach will survive because I think it lacks the staying power, under it's own weight, for practical reasons. That's not the question and the A-11 is no longer the issue. That will be handled in due course by those who are authorized to deal with it, as has been recognized for some time.

My original intent, regarding this issue was to simply alert some that their comments were getting off track and unnecessarily personal and excessively derogatory. Now, after you might fast forward a lot of smart a$$ remarks, ridiculous assertions, absurd presumptions and assorted accusations based on absolutely nothing that was said or intended, my tone may have adjusted, downward, to stay with the flow of traffic.

Spare me your suggesting that the wetness all over my leg, right where you and a few others have been standing with your zippers down, is due to rainfall. I'm not buying your righteous indignation and I recognize who, and more importantly, what I'm responding to. I tried suggesting that wallowing in mud wasn't the smart thing to do, I never hinted it was something I didn't know how to do. You want to live in a glass house, don't throw rocks and don't be surprised when rocks get thrown back.

You wouldn't think that if A-11 had happened to emerge in a game played by NCAA rules. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, there could be life on Mars afterall. I knew it!

Did you ever wonder why the A-11 has never been used in an NCAA game? Did you ever wornder why all of Kurt Bryan's post about the A-11 releate to NF rules? It is because the current rules of the NCAA do not allow it....even Kurt Bryan understand that,

Then feel free to move along. Those of us who've been following the thread out of sheer morbid curiosity have seen it pointed out to you, on several occasions, that none of us are open to any of your interpersonal communication tutoring. Besides, you said it best in an earlier post. If we weren't fortunate enough to acquire the requisite communication skills from our parents, there's probably very little you can do now in the way of influence.

Without a doubt, the funniest (and most revealing) thing you've said to date. What a bummer it must be. You started out "well above" all of the insults and unprofessional behavior. Now look at ya'. Your swimming in the sewer with the rest of us turds. In the future, be a little more careful with whom you choose to spend time with.

And the best part about it is, you attempted to justify your altered behavior by using a "flow of traffic" analogy. I've got to say, I absolutely laughed until I cried when I read that.

I'm not even going to touch this one. But let me say this from a person who, until today, considered himself a disinterested third party to all this crap. Absolutely juvenile. I'm sorry, who's the professional? JR may jump in your face a little with some of his responses, but I've never seen him respond like a drunken frat boy.

You've blathered on about people who shout and insult in an attempt to force their opinions on others. Over the years, I've seen another tactic that people might use to force their opinions onto others. Using a truck load of ten dollar words in attempt to convince everyone around them that their opinion MUST be important because, holy cow, look at all the big words I've used!

Yes, I'm brand new here. And, yes, I'm a new official. Could give a rat's tail what you, or anyone else, thinks about the appropriateness of my post with so little time on.

And for the rest of us........every time we respond (yes, I'm just as guilty right now...I absolutely couldn't help myself) we throw fodder on the fire. Let him go.....be free ajmc, and tell KB we said hello and we wish him the best with his program (and I mean that).

Considering hardly anybody's played A-11 at all, and that fewer games are played by NCAA rules than Fed rules, no.

No, it's because Kurt Bryan's opinion about the rules should not be taken as dispositive.

Robert

Any news yet?

They won't release until Feb.
 

usually.

What is being demonstrated is that despite the proposed change, those who think like Koach Kurt will continue to believe they are within the rules. Those who understand the spirit of the rules will continue to regard them as the cheats they are.

So, no resolution, but at least we have the spirit of the rule re-inforced in writing and the expectation of the coach and teams to play within that spirit, also in writing.

That's enough to see the beginning of the end of A-11.

However, I'm sure there are other loopholes being examined as we speak. Snake oil salesmen never die, they just switch elixirs.

By the way, not to be offensive, but when it comes to rules governing play at high schools in the US, I really don't give a crap what they do in Canada.

Once again the Hyena Pack rears its ugly head. . .
 

You know a funny thing happened since I posted my earlier social experiment, this same pack of snarling beasts simply moved to another area and continued to ravage anything in its path.

Instead of trolling this web site and spewing your vile all over the Internet for everyone to read and see, why don't you go down to the barber shop and get yourselves some "man-zillians", then head out to your own local ice cream parlor, sit next to a nice looking lady, make some conversation and go out on a date! and do it again! and do it again!

I mean, do any of you have lives? Or does JRutDude come here to meet TXMike every night? Or does Hickland come here to meet JayBird every night? Or does ASDF come here to meet Snackwells (aka Snausages) because it doesn't hurt so much? Or does HLNC come here to meet "Mr(P)umpire of the night"? Get a life ladies and Ed Hickland please don't suck Brand New into your lair of arrogance. Really fellers, what kind of perfume do you buy each other for Christmas?

Has anyone ever bothered to count that there's only 20 of you and its the same drone over and over and over. RutDude Since 2000! That 8 years. You must have such bad buildup, you could shampoo a Wildebeest from 20 yards away! Turn it loose on a woman for the love of god. You'll be in a much better mood when you arrive and hopefully talk about what a beautiful shade a green field-turf is!

Have fun with this post boorish louts. And Jaybird, you are definitely elevating your game to a who new level with those shameful comments about the 50 year officiating veteran. Be proud. You da man. Barack ran so that despicable hyenas could interact with children.

Actually big guy, I have been around here since about 97-98 when this site along with a now defunked site was very popular in the officiating community. And honestly if you do not like the people here, then take your behind somewhere else. Funny how things have been going just fine when you were not here. And honestly, who cares what you think. You do not even have the balls to represent yourself in a real way, but try to insult people you cannot get to. Big man you are. I guess we are all supposed to give a damn now because your feelings were hurt.

Peace

Oh Rut!!!
 

Two snaps for little RutDude!! Gettin' alllllll lathered up!

So are you saying its not been 8 years but 11 years? Man oh my! As the days tick by the temperament just gets hotter & hotter.

You know Rut, why don't you just come to your senses and quit while you are behind. It's so obvious you are a mental midget in one-on-one battles of wits. Separated from your pack all you can do is beg for the heat to go away.

All lathered up over what?

You really need to get a clue. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing011.gif

It is about 8 months until the next football season and I worked the final game of the year. I really think there are bigger things to worry about than what someone thinks about an issue that has already been resolved.

Peace

The issue of your behavior resolved?
 

Oh, I don't think so Sir. But your pack may think so, and that's expected, and its showing itself daily. From one bitter discussion to the next. Blah, Blah, Blah.

Whatever you say Big Guy. You will not be around in a week and it took you over a several weeks to comment on a dead issue.

If you do not like what is said, do not come back. You will not hurt my feelings or anyone else here for that matter I am sure.

Peace

With all the insults you've thrown out in this post, you seem to be a one man hyena yourself. I have a thought for you and you can take it or leave it. If you have a problem with someone or something here then simply ignore it, move on, and look at the bigger picture. In the grand scheme of things this forum doesn't mean doodly so get yourself a brew, unwad your underwear and smile.

Maybe I could pretend to be angry or something. Or is it flattered?

Seems to me that someone should have been beat more as a child.

Hypocrite, thy handle is zebra295.

What set this sumbuck off again? I was really hoping that (s)he went away, thereby elevating the intelligence level on this site.

Hey ze-bra 295,
While you're critiquing others, you need to look in the mirror. The discussion in this thread is about possible rules changes and to date you have added nothing.
If you insist on trying to correct perceived faults of others, I suggest that you go instruct pre-K youngsters so as to mold them as you see fit. No, on second thought, leave our young people alone. Instead, go to a nursing home and try your luck with those experienced folks. Either way, just go! You add nothing to this (or any other) site.

Even all the king's horses and all the king's men can't make a stupid remark smart, it just doesn't work that way. When frustration compels someone to offer a really unnecessary, and stupid, remark most officials have learned it best to try and ignore the first stupid uttering, in hopes once the hot air is spent it will blow away.

Trying to out-stupid the first dumb remark, with an even dumber one, usually doesn't do anything to elevate anything related to intelligence. Unfortunately, when the first stupid remark generates a string of equally stupid responses, to the point it seems any stupid comment requires a choir like series of equally stupid responses, ignoring all of them just doesn't seem as effective a deterrent as hoped.

The fact that someone has been offering stupid remarks longer than everyone else doesn't usually amount to an accomplishment for most and perhaps should serve as an opportunity for introspection.

Perhaps, simply choosing to respond to stupid postings more like we all know how to respond to stupid comments we hear on the field, ignoring most of the initial ones, there would be a lot less need for cascading stupid reactions. Do any stupid, unnecessary comments relate to rule changes? It's really rare that when rocks start getting thrown back and forth, anyone actually benefits from the exercise

Hey dude! Who appointed you God? If you don't like the people and the company we keep do the American thing, take your clueless self somewhere else, nobody forced you to logon.

Speaking of dumb remarks and trying to out-stupid someone... zebra295's kin folk, ajmc, just spoke also trying to tell others how to act and speak. Both of you two characters need to focus on the subject matter instead of trying to correct others who's behavior you don't approve. If it would make you feel better, I can group you with KB and just never respond to his or your remarks again.

Irony?

I was thinking the same thing.

Peace

Just because I like watching these hamsters run, here's what I got out of ajmc's remarks...

...stupid...unnecessary, and stupid...stupid...hot air...

...out-stupid...dumb remark...even dumber...stupid ...stupid responses...stupid comment...stupid...

...stupid remarks...

...stupid postings...stupid, unnecessary comments...

everything else in between pretty much reminded me of Charlie Brown's teacher. Wa-wat-wa wat-wa-wa.

I was afraid I might have been too subtle, MikeL, but I'm glad you were able to glean the heart of it. Did you ever think about all the trouble Charlie Brown might have avoided if he heard his teacher, just a little?

Actually, Charlie always did hear his teacher and responded intelligently. At least as intelligently as a cartoon kid could. The genius of Schultz was he realized, what the teacher actually said was not relevant to his audience for either the humor or understanding of the story. Perhaps that is something you in your self appointed role of "teacher" here should consider.

MikeL, I've never seen myself in the role of a teacher, especially not with something as basic and as important as normal manners and respect. Those are things your parents were supposed to teach you, although I don't fault them for the results they attained with you. For any type of learning to happen, it requires some level of interest and intent to be taught on the part of the student.

There are some things, that if you fail to understand by the age of 10 or 12, you just may never get.

I would say then your parents did not teach you very well if you think this is about manners. For one this is a place to discuss things. Secondly, there is nothing in manners that requires everyone to agree with a person or not have an opinion. If we were talking about politics, people would have an opinion about the people involved and the positions they take. This has absolutely to do with manners; you really need to stop acting like it does.

Peace

Perhaps not, but you certainly like to lecture like one. You may not see yourself that way, but if you bother to read the many responses to your posts, that is the way you are seen. Perhaps your parents should have taught you that how people see you is reality.

I second that.

Agreed

I'm really hoping.

Damn, so much for hoping.

I'm getting lost here, are you making the first stupid remark or the equally stupid response?


How about someone who has offered the longest stupid post?

Physician heal thyself.

Your post sure didn't, but is that required? This board would be really quiet if all posts were required to relate to just rule changes. Some posts relate to rats and cheats.

Says the man as he throws one of the largest boulders in the thread.

A friggin' classic! Well done, sir.

Zebra295,you just joined this month and have added 20 posts. I am not sure if you have had any positive posts but I do know you have added negative posts and we do not need these. This forum was good before you joined and will be good AFTER YOU LEAVE. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out. Goodbye.

Perhaps, therein lies the problem, we're talking about two different things. You keep trying to pull my comments back into a discussion about the A-11 Offense. As I've often repeated, I'm not arguing with your opposition to this offense.

I have never hinted, much less suggested, there is anything wrong with disagreeing with someone, holding or advocating a different viewpoint or forming and defending a different opinion. Going way back, when several posters started to get way off the track and crossed the line of honest, civil debate, I simply suggested some drifted a little too far.

Shouldn't have been a big deal, but some apparently hold themselves way above even the suggestion that they may have erred and apparently cannot accept any possible criticism, or even suggestion of such.

You've (that's a collective "you") been trying to cover, what started as some innocuous excessive language to defend your position, with a WW III defensive effort that has detoured down multiple roads to nowhere, climbed mountains of righteous indignation and all sorts of anncillary BS, rather than simply consider what you originally stated, and respond accordingly.

To all of you, easily offended contributors; if you want to bellow and bark and make stupid, unfounded accusations and toss childish insults annonimously, or by name, at people you will never meet, knock yourselves out, but do it on your own.

However, when you readily and willingly identify yourselves as "officials", to add credibility to whatever your argument is on whatever subject you care to comment on, your presentation casts light on the rest of us who lay claim to that title. If you want to speak as some jerk, you are free to do so, but be good enough to do so on your own.

When, however, you choose to speak from under the umbrella, of being an "official", you should understand you're speaking with a level of gravitas that has been provided by a lot of other people, over a long period of time and you owe it to all of them to act responsibly and respectfully, which several of you have failed miserably to do on this particular subject.

Sadly, I've ignored sound advice I've been given about, "never argue with fools", so I'm done . If your parents failed to teach you proper behavior, and you haven't figured out how to recognize it by this stage of your life, I'm sure as hell not capable or interested in correcting you. Either you get it, or you don't, but if you don't all the denial and BS is not going to make a difference or hide a lack of class.

amjc,

Here in lies the only problem.

If you do not like the nature of the discussions, you do not have to be here. No one is putting a gun to your head to be here. No one honestly cares if you are here just like they do not care if I am here.

I have said this several times, if you do not like the way the conversations go here, there are a few ways that will keep you happy. Because no on is going to change just because you are upset. I know I am not changing a damn thing. If someone wants to not be accused of anything, they never had to make the comments in the first place.

Peace

Quite the fixation you seem to have. You should talk to someone about that. Really, before it affects your mental health, talk to a professional.

mick and Bob, the Internet Nazis are in full force, telling folks what they can and can't post. Isn't it about time to shut this thread down?