This has to be said.

It is not character assassination to point out an obvious flaw in someone's argument when they clearly do not know (or do not say) the proper procedure. And to name this person as evidence of what other officials might think is a little silly.

I am sorry this little crusade you are trying to take when someone disagrees with someone is a little over the top. This has nothing to do with the election or the current (or soon to be) President of the United States.

Peace

EXACTLY! I'm gald you've finally come over to our side ! We don't know if he exists, yet KB is willing to put him out there as a testimonial. 50 years of experience in what capacity? Being old doesn't mean you're good. I rather hear what is resume is during those 50 years. I think it's odd that KB left that out. If he's done 20 state finals during those 50 years don't you think KB would want the world to know that?

I was hoping KB and the lunatic fringe WOULD go away. But you're still here. Pity.

Tick tock on the A-11. It will be all gone and forgotten soon enough. Boo hoo.

For a test like that, the question copyright law asks is whether there would be a great number of ways to express the same content. If the test is just short answer stuff about Fed officiating, then the answer is probably "no" -- that there are only a few ways to put questions testing one's knowledge of that subject. In that case, a copyright would tend to convert knowledge of the subject into a secret -- which it is not -- and thereby provide an illegitimate means of monopolizing knowledge about the subject.

It's like recipes. A cookbook can have all kinds of chitchat between the recipes that would be copyrightable, but not the recipes themselves because practically speaking there are few useful ways to express such useful knowledge.

However, I know people who like you feel that when an author has done a lot of work compiling recipes (in these people's case, recipes for fireworks), that even if they're not secrets, they won't communicate them to others because they want the author to benefit from the sale of the books. If you feel the same way about Fed and their revenue, fine.

Still, the particular compilation of test questions is copyrightable, the way a long passage of a cookbook covering several recipes would be protectable by copyright, even without a lot of chitchat in between. I suppose someone might make the same argument about the order of chapters or sections in a rulebook, but it would apply only if the rules would read as easily regardless of the order they were presented in.

Robert

Sam is 79 and apparently is the assignor of the East Bay Officials. It is unclear in 5 minutes of Googling if he is still an active official.

What is clear is that Sam is the only official widely quoted in different articles about this offense. He must be KB's example of an official who "likes" the offense.

Would it be fair to ask Sam if he's being compensated for his endorsement?

And is there anything in that short snippet from KB that even proves the claim of the post headline. i.e. that he has seen more A-11 games than any other official? ? ? ? ? If he is an assignor, I doubt he has actually seen (and more importantly, OFFICIATED) many games of ANY offense.

Do any of you bother to read the garbage you write. This is getting insane. You are so wrapped up in this A-11 contoversy you'd rather jump to all sorts of negative speculations, presume the absolute worst about an individual you don't know and make all sorts of asinne accusations without any thing to back them up aside from your imaginations.

If you don't believe what coach Bryan, or anybody else has claimed, you are totally free to ignore it, but personally attacking someone you don't even know is what little girls do throwing a hissy-fit.

RichMSN is ready to call this man a liar, and questions whether or not he's still active. Based on what?

Waltjp seems ready to question his integrity presuming he's getting paid to say certain things, whether they're true, or not. Where does that suspicion come from?

Daggo66 seems eager to questions the man's competence over a 50 year career. ("being old doesn't mean you're good"), and somehow feels competent to demand a resume' to prove what?? That his 50 years satisfyies Daggo66's standards? Just who the hell are you to define standards for judging anyone competent, Daggo66?

I am so glad I don't have to worry about ever stepping on a field with any of you. You are so quick, so eager to slash and burn a man who has spent 50 years on the field, for what? Because this man has rendered an opinion of doing something that doesn't fit your view of how something so stupid as this argument, over a formation whose legality and appropriateness is currently under discussion, may yet turn out.

What happened to the "3rd team on the field" concept, the idea of respecting those who do what we do, of supporting fellow officials because we understand the difficulty of the job and the unreasonable expectations we face.

I don't think petty sniping, throwing unsubstantiated allegations against the wall and spreading rumors as a defense against a differing perspective is what anyone had in mind when they speak of courage, honesty and the ability to remain calm and the force of reason and composure when everyone around us is being over emotional is all about.

Some of you are way, WAY too full of yourselves.

Thanks for posting Mrs. Bryan....
 

now get back to ironing Kurt's shirts!

Seems to me if someone makes a claim like KB did, that this official has seen more A11 games than any other official, and uses that to give the fellow some sort of credibility in addition to his credibility as an experienced official, he ought to be able to back it up. The A-11 is all over the country KB would have us believe. So how does he know who has seen the most games. And an assignor would likely not be watching the games of one team. If he is any kind of assignor, he is looking at all the teams he assigns for.

AJ, you become more amusing with each passing day.

I'd rather be full of myself than what you are, sir.

Let me get this straight. BTW, this is my real name and first initial of my first name. Are you telling me, that if I am using my real name and I say that I worked the Big Ten for 20 years and I worked in the NFL this past season, no one is supposed to not only try to verify that information, but just ignore it on its face? Then I keep coming back to give more evidence as to why I have to be listened to or evidence that I actually working in the Big Ten or NFL, with more evidence that cannot be verified?

If you honestly believe that, something is seriously wrong with you. Not because I say so, because there is not an area in society that if I make a claim that is not true, my credibility is going to be in question. And if I have a history of making claims that are not true, then people are going to challenge my motives. They are doing that when it comes to politics and our leaders, to our sports figures and the way the media challenges claims of accomplishment or how they got to where they are today. There is nothing about that childish, unprofessional or out of line to question the evidence that someone claims.

All of this would really go away if KB would just let the issue go. No one told him or me to post this information about this official and based on "experience" which you do not seem to have much of, many of us do not see a team in a two year period of time so much more than anyone else. Not unless you only work one school every single game you work during that period.

Dude, wake up already. :rolleyes:

Peace

That would be character assassination. Shame on you. ;)

Why am I not allowed to dispute what someone has "claimed". Why must I ignore it? Does KB's right to make a statement superscede my right to dispute it?

Based on the same standard we use for everything here. If someone posts a ruling, we will ask for the rule reference. If someone makes a claim they should be prepared to have a reference.

The information is posted as a testimonial. Quite often testimonials are paid.

You never cease to amaze me! We are not allowed to dispute someone's statement since you feel it is personally attacking someone, yet that is exactly what you do each and every time you post here. The difference between you and me is that I will answer your question. You can't go into a job interview and state that you graduated at the top of your class in Harvard unless it is on your resume and it can be verified. As far as me being able to define standards, I have trained many officials over the years. My basic standard is whether or not I would accept that person on my crew. Our organization has officials that have been working for over 15 years that I would not accept, yet there are some with less than 3 years experience that I would accept in a heartbeat.

This is no different than requesting the rule reference. I don't care how long someone has been officiating, I want to know how good they are.

I think that I can safely speak for most of the members on this forum, that we are equally glad that we don't have to worry about stepping on the field with you!