Possible rules changes for 2009

[ajmc]

"You sir (or madam)..... are an idiot." (asdf)

Perhaps, but before you blow way too much smoke up your own other end about your "courage and common sense" you might want to consider the childish behavior you have demonstrated in these interactions. When faced with disagreement about any rule interpretation or situation the appropriate way to respond to challenge is to remain calm, collected and on point, basing your argument on fact and understanding.

Resorting to personal attacks based purely on speculation about issues you have no factual knowledge about, with the express purpose of simply denegrating those who disagree with you, rather than keeping your challenge to the issue at hand, is the behavior of an insecure juvenile, and has nothing to with either courage or common sense.

Running off on a tangent seeking cover under some obscure interpretation of what you unsuccessfully try to sneak under the cover of, "Spirit of the Rules" is not an example of what the Officials Manual you so glibly quote advises. The Manual suggests "The officials duties and responsibilities are fixed by rules and this manual is designed to help officials carry out these duties. It goes on to talk about, "how to show poise, control temper, or how to be coutreous and considerate yet firm and decisive." "Fixed by rules", not the whim and opinion of individuals who simply don't like, don't understand or are unwilling to face and deal with interpretations they don't feel comfortable or agree with.

There's nothing in the Officials Manual suggesting bullying or trying to coerce opinions about matters that may simply be viewed differently, even should those perceptions eventually turn out to be incorrect. Mature officials abide by what the rule makers have stated, until such time the rule makers decide to make adjustments. We don't work by a show of hands.

I suffer no illusions about always being right, and am willing and eager to hear and consider differing opinions and perspectives, as long as they are rational, factual and are presented in an appropriate manner. Differing perspectives have taught me a lot over time, but to benefit from them you have to consider the facts apart from the emotions.

One talent officiating has taught me is to recognize emotionally dependent blow hards who think shouting and insulting those they disagree with will somehow make them look and sound smarter. You are not even close to establishing anything as being a mandate, so spare me your indignation.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

One talent officiating has taught me is to recognize emotionally dependent blow hards who think shouting and insulting those they disagree with will somehow make them look and sound smarter. You are not even close to establishing anything as being a mandate, so spare me your indignation.

One talent it hasn't taught you is to be able to communicate concisely, always using 500 words when 50 would do.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

One talent it hasn't taught you is to be able to communicate concisely, always using 500 words when 50 would do.

RichMSN, if you're trying to help make my case for how utterly petty and childish some responses can lower themselves to, you're doing an outstanding job. Thanks.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"You sir (or madam)..... are an idiot." (asdf)

Perhaps, but before you blow way too much smoke up your own other end about your "courage and common sense" you might want to consider the childish behavior you have demonstrated in these interactions. When faced with disagreement about any rule interpretation or situation the appropriate way to respond to challenge is to remain calm, collected and on point, basing your argument on fact and understanding.

Resorting to personal attacks based purely on speculation about issues you have no factual knowledge about, with the express purpose of simply denegrating those who disagree with you, rather than keeping your challenge to the issue at hand, is the behavior of an insecure juvenile, and has nothing to with either courage or common sense.

Running off on a tangent seeking cover under some obscure interpretation of what you unsuccessfully try to sneak under the cover of, "Spirit of the Rules" is not an example of what the Officials Manual you so glibly quote advises. The Manual suggests "The officials duties and responsibilities are fixed by rules and this manual is designed to help officials carry out these duties. It goes on to talk about, "how to show poise, control temper, or how to be coutreous and considerate yet firm and decisive." "Fixed by rules", not the whim and opinion of individuals who simply don't like, don't understand or are unwilling to face and deal with interpretations they don't feel comfortable or agree with.

There's nothing in the Officials Manual suggesting bullying or trying to coerce opinions about matters that may simply be viewed differently, even should those perceptions eventually turn out to be incorrect. Mature officials abide by what the rule makers have stated, until such time the rule makers decide to make adjustments. We don't work by a show of hands.

I suffer no illusions about always being right, and am willing and eager to hear and consider differing opinions and perspectives, as long as they are rational, factual and are presented in an appropriate manner. Differing perspectives have taught me a lot over time, but to benefit from them you have to consider the facts apart from the emotions.

One talent officiating has taught me is to recognize emotionally dependent blow hards who think shouting and insulting those they disagree with will somehow make them look and sound smarter. You are not even close to establishing anything as being a mandate, so spare me your indignation.

Thanks...

You validated my opinion.