The old saying is that some people have 15 years of experience and some have one year of experience 15 times. I'm with you - there are 30 year vets in this area I would not accept on my crew. They know it all.

(OT: My football crew consists of one guy who's got 5 years (all on my crew), one who has 4 years (all on my crew), one who has 3 years (all on my crew), and a 10 year guy who filled in when I sacked 2 other guys from my crew 3 years ago. I'd take this crew ANYWHERE.)

Daggo66, allow me to offer you some sound advice; when you say something stupid, and it's pointed out to you, you have 3 options; consider the criticism, ignore the criticism or defend what you've said with even more stupid observations. You seem stuck in repeatedly choosing the latter.

I'm tired of saying there is nothing wrong with disputing what someone has said, disagreeing with anything you feel needs to be disagreed with or challenging something. The key is how you go about disagreeing or challenging something.

Again, you get to make choices, you can question, disagree with or challenge the subject matter with logic and common sense or you can attack the person who hold a differing opinion with ridiculous personal attacks, imanginary presumptions and smart alec little barbs, or demand ridiculous requirements to satisfy some higher sense of purpose that somehow you think you've been anointed to set.

I'm just guessing, but I imagine you've been doing this, thing we do, for somewhere between 3 and 7-10 years, because you seem stuck in that phase of officiating, we all have to get though, when we realize that we actually do know and understand more than most idiots who buy tickets and stoll along some sidelines, and think that makes us important.

If you last long enough to get through this phase, you'll realize that although you know and understand a lot more than you did, it's not nearly enough or anywhere close to knowing and understanding what you ultimately need to. You'll eventually realize that you still leave an oder in the bathroom, and you might understand that the reason God gave you two ears, and only one mouth was to teach a lesson. Unfortunately, some officials never get past that phase where they think they know everything and have become smarter than everone else.

Rather than direct all your focus on nit picling everything someone with a different perspective offers, you might consider that those tidbits, right or wrong, have been offered respectfully and usually stick to the subject matter, rather than attack or demonize some imaginary motivation for your disagreeing. The negative emphasis in these discussions has come from only one direction.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, so long as you don't become disageeable or insulting. Manners and civility are things your parents were supposed to teach you, and although they may have tried valiantly, that message doesn't seem to have taken. I don't really care what your "basic standard" is, or need to know your specific objectives, because, as one official to another, I presume it's to be as good as you can be.

Here's another flash, you may someday grow to understand, some officials are actually a lot better at what we do than others, and you may actually not be as high up on that general list as you think you are. That doesn't mean you're not working as hard as you can to be the best you can be, or deserve less respect for your efforts.

I'll give you another piece of sound advice, don't presume you speak for anyone but yourself, because invariably you don't.

Once again you've proved my point, thank you.

Stop guessing, you're way off.

At this point I have decided that I will no longer engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Feel free to continue and have the last word, or couple hundred anyway.

Thank you Kurt and Sam!

Please comeback next month when the A-11 is history.

I wouldn't presume to "tell" you anything, but I would never even think about verifying whatever you claim is your history or accomplishments. I choose, rather, to base how much attention and credibility I'll apply to what you say, to what I find the value of what you've said, actually is.

You seem to be awfully insecure about your credibility and what others think of your observations. I might suggest that if you're comfortable and secure with your credibility, and believe your observations have value, that's really all that you can do, and all that should be necessary.

I've read your input on multiple issues for several years and find it most often to be relevant, appropriate and instructive, because you usually stick to the salient specifics of whatever point or subject is being discussed. Occassionally you do tend to drift a little towards overbearing and pompous, but usually not to the extent of eliminating the basic value of your observations.

I've found most of your suggestions, even those I may not totally agee with, rational and reasonable and hope you wouldn't reject my right to disagee, should I feel disagreement was appropriate. However, I would hope I'm smart enough to offer any disagreement respectfully, and in such a manner that I might hope to persuade you, or others, to consider my perspective or create a discussion from which I might be persuaded to consider a different perspective. Otherwise what's the point in responding. Whatever my response might be, the manner in which it was delivered only reflects on me.

These discussions, on this subject, turned sour when some (I'm not going to bother to specify who said what, when) got off the track of the issue and went after the messenger. You mention our political process, which has over the past few decades, largely seen the political debate hijacked by spin masters, on both sides, who use rumor, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations to slime and slander opponents for the express purpose of blowing smoke in voters eyes, unfortunately, often successfully.

I just hate to see these, normally valuable exchanges about very specific, relevant topics follow down the same road of, "if you don't see it my way, you're the devil". A lot of the pure garbage that has been offered in these recent discussions is nothing to be proud of, and what is saddest, is totally unproductive and unnecessary.

Don't roll your eyes, look in your mirror. I look in mine and what I see is always a long way from perfection looking back, and no matter how much I yell at the image to change it won't improve until I do.

My questions:

1) Sam says five eligible receivers. Did he mean 5 plus the player receiving the snap? There should be 6 as the player under the snapper is eligible.

2) Flags on each play!? Yikes! That sounds like a real slow game and I cannot imagine coaches, players, spectators, etc. getting tired of all the picked up flags.

3) "The biggest pressure really is on the wing men – the head linesman and the line judge – because they are the ones who determine who is eligible." Isn't this what wing men do all the time? I think he means they have to determine eligibles and once the ball is snapped determine where the ineligibles are. He does not mention the U who must determine players who are eligible by number but ineligible by position. Without the numbering exception the U only has to look for easily identifiable numbers 50-79. The expectation is when the numbering exception is in the U focuses on a kick but must be alert for a fake or blown kick.

Without attacking Coach Bryan personally you have to wonder his motives. The game seemed to be just fine without the A-11. Maybe soccer would be a better game for him, they don't have the complication of numbering requirements.

Are you ever going to be able to write a response less than 500 words that says anything of substance?

The cure for verbal diarrhea, BTW, is a big glass of STFU.

I'll try. I doubt very much whether you have sufficient intelligence to grasp anything of substance. Usually when really stupid people have nothing to add, they try and shout or be obnoxious out of frustration. You are a perfect example. (40 words)

ajmc's observations are right on the money. Read them again if you don't agree.

In the meantime, maybe the mods should lock this entire Football forum for a week! :D

Enough already!:mad:

This forum has been a great sharing experience and at times has gotten a bit personal but overall you can exchange great thoughts and ideas with officials from various places.

Maybe you should not participate if you feel the need to personally attack.

I wouldn't think answering a direct question, would qualify as a (uncalled for)personal attack, but then again, that's only my opinion and I've never suggested my opinions are always right. Just goes to show, knowing the rules doesn't mean you will always execute them properly.

It is clear that you have no credibility on this or many other issues. For one you have not been working very long and you have no idea what is expected of officials on or off the field. That is certain. If you cannot bring up a point of view without attacking someone personally, then I am trying to figure out why you are still here. You have contributed nothing but trying to tell people that have been here a lot longer than you have, how to take on points that are very relevant to the discussion.

I am overbearing and pompous, but you tell the entire board, that they cannot dispute the facts of an "endorsement" with the only purpose to try to justify why a rule should be put in place or not? I think there are a lot of officials with a lot of experience here and they are irrelevant but some unnamed, unknown officials with 50 years of experience know more than everyone here. I do not know about you, but have you done the math on how old someone would have to be to have 50 years of experience. I know 50 year olds having trouble keeping up with the game physically without this offense, but a 50 year football officiating experience guy, is more knowledgeable than anyone else here? WOW!!!

Wait a minute, you can try to talk about what you feel I am thinking, but no one here can question the motives of a person that only comes here to talk about one issue. Then when he comes to talk about that issue, we cannot address their evidence (that they bring to the table, not anyone else) because it is a personal attack or unprofessional?

See the difference between you and me; I have no problem what you think of me. The fact is that whatever you think of me, I have proven on many occasions that what I say to be credible, because not only do I back those claims up, I use my real name and those claims or comments can be verified. And you have yet to give a name, a place you work or live or any relevant information that proves that you have not only the standing to say the things you do, but the experience to back it up. People on this board knew of things I did and I did not even have to tell anyone. And there are many others here that have that same transparency in their words.

So is rumor or innuendo, when someone brings what they call a fact to the table and people see holes in those claims. Like I said earlier, if I claimed to have worked in the Big Ten or NFL that information is easily verifiable by a lot of people. And if it is not verified, someone is going to claim that I am lying or misrepresenting my history or resume. I do not know that you comments make sense. Actually based on this thread alone, you have made some rather personal comments about me and I do not see why that is OK, but we cannot figure out how one official knows more about one team than anyone else. IF you are an assignor and doing your job, you are not at that one school all the time. Sorry, but those are inconsistent facts given by KB and should be scrutinized on some level.

I am sorry, but that is another lie. There is a difference between not seeing something someone's way, and challenging the motives of the comments or the credentials of where those comments came from.

I will roll my eyes, because the hypocracy in your statements are in many ways stunning.

Peace

One of the things veteran officials learn is when to keep quiet. Maybe, that is why they are veteran officials.

I asked myself how many times have coaches questioned my judgement which is a personal attack such as "how can you see that?"

Now I could escalate that into something resembling insanity by making some personal remark or I could simply walk away and not justify the remark.

I ask any official on this forum what is the right thing to do?

Well, pretend this forum is the football field.

Are you saying that I can eject someone?:D

I don't care who's side you're on, that's funny. :p