Pink cancer pins

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.....

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by asdf

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

Yep.

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

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

No one's piling on the obnoxious officials because people only see good-hearted officials who wanted to raise breast cancer awareness and the obnoxious state association that wants to punish them for it.

You say we aren't seeing the whole picture, but there is precious little that could even conceivably change the scenario. The punchline is always going to be that the state association cares more about the color of a whistle (of all things) than women dieing of breast cancer.

Let me repeat: the message from WOA has been to this point that whistles are more important than women.

You can't change that narrative by saying the officials haven't been choir boys in the past.

It's ludicrous to be bent out of shape by the color of a whistle in the first place. Take away the whole breast cancer awareness and if you tell me WOA is going to suspend officials because they used silver whistles instead of black, I'd say they were power hungry bureaucrats that need to find something more productive to do.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

Sorry rockyroad, but your association chose this issue to publicly go to battle against, likely without considering the potential fallout and backlash that would be associated with your decision. The result, you have " a wolf by the ears" and there's no safe, or easy, way to let go.

My suggestion would be to curl up while you hold on and wait for the wolf to go to sleep, which may take a while. In the meantime I'd suggest keeping absolutely quiet, because anything you say may keep that wolf awake.

Sometimes being technically right comes up way short of where you expected it would be, and there's just no way to make up the distance.

[BktBallRef]

The WOA was sabotoged by a member of the local association that worked at the TV station. How hard is that to figure out?

If this were to happen in NC, it would not take the NCHSAA long to terminate their relationship with this local association and start efforts to create a new local association. They are independent contractors and have no standing.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The WOA was sabotoged by a member of the local association that worked at the TV station. How hard is that to figure out?

If this were to happen in NC, it would not take the NCHSAA long to terminate their relationship with this local association and start efforts to create a new local association. They are independent contractors and have no standing.

The WOA is the one that pointed the gun at their own foot. And yes, officials are usually independent contractors and you can stop hiring any of them for any reason, but if you start treating them poorly you'll find that none of them will work for you either.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The WOA is the one that pointed the gun at their own foot. And yes, officials are usually independent contractors and you can stop hiring any of them for any reason, but if you start treating them poorly you'll find that none of them will work for you either.

Setting up guidelines and creating policies to govern the association is treating them poorly? What total BS.