Ok, so some of you just don't get it. If you ever move to Washington, you will fit right in with the PNFOA.

Rocky,

With all due respect I am not sure what the big issue is. And if they feel they are standing on solid ground and worrying about what color the whistles are, then why would they change their stance and back off?

I know many officials that have personally sent Todd emails. If he is right he should stand his ground.

HS sports are about the community and officials are an extension of that community. Is this really an issue the WOA has to make a big deal? Of all things this is it? And you have not said anything that changes that fact. If the WOA is right they should stand their ground.

Peace

I'm sure there are many officials in WA that feel exactly the same way and quietly comply just because they would rather not get on this guy's bad side. Good on that group for being willing to take a stand over something they feel is important, for whatever reason.

And nope, I don't get it. This isn't basketball. People in football use black whistles, metal whistles, and metal whistles with white tips. Not everyone on the same crew uses the same whistle -- it's personal preference. I've used a Thunderer (metal with white rubber tip) and while I've gone back to a Fox 40, I wouldn't keep someone on my crew from using one if they like it best. Most people don't give a flying fig about the color of whistle for a football official. That's why it's not even specified in the NFHS manual.

Next someone will say that a specific crew card and a certain type of pen or pencil is required, too.

Exactly!!!

Peace

No, rocky, you and the WOA don't get it. Every thing that comes out of the WOA just makes them look worse.

Still looks like a pissing contest to me. True, as you point out, it's one with a history beyond this one episode, and with plenty of vituperation on both sides. But, hey, it's still piss. :rolleyes:

Sure...but it's a pissing match started by and forced by the officials in question...so why aren't some of these other people sending them any e-mails or blasting them? No - let's just blast the one guy who actually followed the "rules" or "directives" or whatever you want to call them.

Some people have some really strange colored glasses that never see wrong from a fellow official. In this case, these guys do not deserve the support thay are getting.

And some people are wearing blinders.

If nothing was done incorrectly by Stordahl, why does the WOA have posted on their website a declaration that they never had any intention to fine or take away games ?

Also, tell me about the disciplinary process that was followed correctly here.....

Look, I have pointed this out before. One of the officials in question has ties to the tv station that ran the story. They cut and edited what they wanted. Are there provisions for disciplinary action? Yes. Did Stordahl say that disciplinary action MIGHT be taken? Yes. Did he explain what that disciplinary action MIGHT be? Yes. So because of that he is a loser, a jerk, a a$$-hole...whatever else you want to think. But again, from wherever you are, you do NOT know what is going on. You have watched an edited clip of a 20-25 minute interview - edited by friends of one of the guys involved.

As far as the process and the directives...do your own research. That might be a nice change up.

But you realize, I hope, that there is no "right" side of a pissing contest? Everyone gets pointlessly wet.

My impression is that the state bureaucrats are trying to wield their power by enforcing arbitrary and capricious uniform rules over an obnoxious and obstreperous association that is rankling at the thought of obeying the state association.

The state should shut up and learn more about concussions. The association should shut up and do what the other associations do.

JMO.

There's an old saying "Never start an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel." You're never going to win the public perception battle when the other side has better access to the media than you do. So you have to make a choice: is being right in your mind worth appearing devastatingly wrong to everyone else? WOA made its choice (and now is trying desperately to save face given the statement from their board on the web site).

Complaining that the interview was edited by the friend of one of the involved guys is a cheap cop out. The bottom line is still always going to be that they were threatened with a suspension over a charitable act and that WOA arbitrarily assigns sports with acceptable charities. Maybe this works in Washington, but here in fly-over country it falls pretty flat.

I'd do my own research but WOA either doesn't make this information publicly available or has pulled it down to help hide what they did.

I agree with your point and with your assessment. And again would ask "Why is no one here piling on the obnoxious officials who started this whole mess?"

And to Eastshire...sigh...keep making your judgements from fly-over country.

Hey, I was.

Yep.

I totally respect a guy that publicly states that someone MIGHT be punished before the entire process is finished. :rolleyes:

But then again "he" is the one who makes the decisions.

He made that very clear to everyone. Now he cannot backpedal fast enough.

It's a PR nightmare for the WOA. He should resign.

Not to poke a stick at you, but exactly where does it state that the football officials' whistles must be a certain color? They aren't getting that from the rulebook. So exactly what rule did they need a waiver to break?