Quote from Veteran Official that's seen the most A-11 Games in the Nation

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

[TXMike]

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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.

[HLin NC]

now get back to ironing Kurt's shirts!

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

[waltjp]

AJ, you become more amusing with each passing day.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?
And if I have a history of making claims that are not true, then people are going to challenge my motives.

Dude, wake up already.

Peace

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

.

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)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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 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!!!

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

I didn't realize, Mr. Rutledge, you were authorized to speak for everyone, or determine what has, or doesn't have any merit. I must have been absent the day you were crowned.

I didn't tell anybody what they could, or couldn't say. I suggested that the immediate reaction and what was said, by some, about a 50 year official, who doubtfully anyone knows personally, was disgraceful, and it was. Yes, you are overbearing and pompous, not always, but frequently you seem to relish climbing up on a high horse if someone dares disagree with you or offers a different perspective. For the record, it's not becoming and doesn't add to the level of credibility you seem so concerned with. Don't assume silence means agreement, more likely it's a sign of simply ignoring you, and rolling eyes.

I'd love to see you confine your remarks to the subject, and drop all this ancillary, imaginary BS you keep trying to inject into the discussion to accomplish nothing but blow smoke and defend previously excessive comments that added nothing to the discussion.

The "things you'de done" don't provide you with a license to slander anyone because you don't happen to agree with, or like, what they think is a good idea. You keep trying to twist this interaction into someting it's not. All I've suggested is that you, and others, went too far in trying to bully and intimidate someone you disagree with by attacking his character and motivation which at best you are only guessing at. If you had any sense of manners or civility, you'd have understood what I was saying and responded accordingly, rather than pump up all your bluster and try and defend being stupid by being more stupid.

All this agita about who I am, what I've done, where I'm from and how long I've been doing what we do, doesn't mean squat. If I offer something worthwhile that has value, that's good, you're welcome to consider it. If what I offer is stupid, irrelevant or you just don't agree with it, your absolutely free to disregard it. I have already told you I've been doing, this thing we do, a lot longer than you. That doesn't guarantee I'm right, but it also doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Someone referenced the "opinion" of a 50 year official, which like any opinion we're all free to accept or reject. Just who do you think you are that you can demand that somehow this man, who simply rendered an opinion, must justify his very existence, his career, his accomplishments to satisfy the mighty Mr. Rutledge. If you don't think his opinion is valid, then ignore it, but demanding someone meet with your approval, sounds awfully like a pompous a$$. You're not some judge, nobody owes you squat.

There are significant differences between you and me. I understand that my perception is not always the best perspective and am willing to consider a different approach to consider if it might just be better. You don't seem capable to even consider that you may not be absolutely correct, and seem iadverse to even suggesting a possibility you might be wrong. Personal perfection is a heavy cross to bear.

I'm not arguing the merits of the A-11 offense with you, I'm suggesting you sometimes you have a real big mouth and trying to bluster your way through mistakes isn't working for you. You can either take that with a grain of salt, or just dismiss it out of hand. Either way, that's your decision and how you decide is entirely on you.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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..

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?

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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? .

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

Originally Posted by ajmc

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?

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by daggo66

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.

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.)