Pink cancer pins

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by WAzebra24

Let me clear up a few issues as someone in the mix:

1. No one has been suspended and no games have been lost at this point

Ok, fair enough.

2. The association was aware of the potential consequences prior to the use of the pink whistles and choose to go ahead anyway. They were aware prior.

Why should there be consequences for the color of the whistles used by the officials? (see my comment to #4)

3. Todd Stordahl is the commissioner for all officials in the state of Washington not just football.

Your point being?

4. The association in question did not follow the approved process for use of non approved uniformn equipment.

Please enlighten us and point us to the document where it states that whistles must be a certain color in WA? As others have said earlier in the thread, there is no rule on whistle color in the NFHS manuals.

Additionally, does this document (which I must assume exists somewhere, or this pissing match is even more idiotic then it appears to an outsider), spell out the penalties for using improper/incorrect equipment?

5. The issue is not breast cancer awareness or the whistle. It is id the official commissioner of the state interpretation of the WOA bylaws should have been followed a local association. Breast cancer awareness as all other noble causes are worthy of our support and money.

Breast cancer research (and any cancer research), is definitely a noble cause. Nobody is questioning that fact.
Again, we need to know what the WOA bylaws state in regards to whistle color.

6. The association backed Todd into a corner and what options did he have? He headss 150 officials associations in the state. Each one can't go their own way otherwise there chaos.

How about this: Don't allow yourself to think you're 'backed into a corner' over something trivial like the color of a whistle. As others have said upthread, don't pick a battle you can't win.
Other options:
1) Explicitly tell officials that the use of pink (orange, blue, silver, white, etc) whistles is allowed prior to the start of the season.
2) If pink (orange, blue, siliver, white, etc) whistles are explicitly not allowed

a) let this go for now, address it at the end of the season.
b) Say nothing about the whistles, and don't assign the officials in question to any playoff games that they haven't previously been assigned. If asked, make up something about the officials "not rating higly enough" or somesuch. (NOTE: I strongly oppose this option, but would have been an option).

I will add Todd has been unjustly villified and threats have been made to his wife and children.

Villified, I'm sure. Unjustly, I don't know. However, I'm sure everyone else on this board would agree with me that any kind of threats made against Todd and/or his family are completely unacceptable.

Come on it its just a whistle.

Which is exactly the point that everyone else here has been trying to make. If Todd had taken that stance initially, we wouldn't be having this conversation AT ALL.

This is a local Washington issue and debating the righteous of either side in this forum is not warranted.

It certainly is warranted. We debate the correctness/widsom/intent of rules and interpretations thereof all the time here. That's one of the main reasons why this board exists.

Each state has it's own structure and decision making process. What works in state A does not apply in state B.

Quite true. However, if an official in state A learns that state B handles situation X in a different, and possibly better, way then state A, that official can use that knowledge to possibly make changes in his/her state. In the business world, this is known as "adopting best practices".

The real question is how the media was made aware of this issue and by whom? I know the answer and it was not the WOA!

Irrelevant.

Please stop passing judgement on WOA, Todd and the association in question.

This is The Internet. Passing judgment is what The Internet does. If you want some of The Internet to change its judgment, you to give The Internet a valid reason for doing so. Of course, you must realize that part of The Internet will never deviate from it's initial judgment.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

How about this: Don't allow yourself to think you're 'backed into a corner' over something trivial like the color of a whistle. As others have said upthread, don't pick a battle you can't win.
Other options:
1) Explicitly tell officials that the use of pink (orange, blue, silver, white, etc) whistles is allowed prior to the start of the season.
2) If pink (orange, blue, siliver, white, etc) whistles are explicitly not allowed

a) let this go for now, address it at the end of the season.
b) Say nothing about the whistles, and don't assign the officials in question to any playoff games that they haven't previously been assigned. If asked, make up something about the officials "not rating higly enough" or somesuch. (NOTE: I strongly oppose this option, but would have been an option).

I completely agree with this. In my state in another sport we had a huge controversy with a uniform violation (with a team not the officials) that took place in the State Finals. Well to make a long story short the officials that had had this team all playoffs long and did not apply the rule properly were not assigned games the following year. No media story or even fanfare. Of course in the officiating community and coaching community this went around, but not a national story. No public explanation was given and we have since moved on. Todd S. decided to talk about this and decided to say things that could be questioned. It would have been better if he left it alone and said nothing. Then if they did not follow the procedure properly do not assign them games. Then let them figure out what the reasons were (and it would not be hard). Then no one would be discussing this here or at least we the perception might be differently. I know I would probably have sided more with the WOA if that was the case instead of their position which seems to be over a minor issue in the bigger picture.

Peace

[WAzebra24]

If some took my post wrong, for that I will apologize. I was trying to pass along information so opinions could be formed based upon information rather than speculation. Making a judgment or decision requires information gathering as my old mentor said time & time again. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

To answer a very well put question; there is nothing in writing in the WOA bylaws or constitution about the color of the whistle nor is the NFHS Officials Manual. Todd as WOA Commissioner made an interpretation that approved color was black prior to this entire happening. If you want to read the WOA bylaws etc go to Washington Officials Association

Another thought is if the association had followed the interpretation of the WOA this would not have happened either. They could have donated money to breast cancer and made stadium announcements and not worn the pink whistles at all. The next season work with WOA get approval from the WOA executive board as needed for uniform exceptions per the bylaws.

For all officials - if your commissioner made a ruling similar to Todd's would you knowingly violate their ruling? If you did would there be consequences? These questions are rhetorical and for thought only. For myself as someone here in the state the crux of the issue is an association knowingly & willfully violated their state commissioner. This is much like a divorce; both sides have culpability in this situation. Neither party has 100% clean hands.

The issue is at rest for now and will be discussed at length next year.

To answer a personal question - no I do not have an uncle in Piedmont CA

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by WAzebra24

For all officials - if your commissioner made a ruling similar to Todd's would you knowingly violate their ruling? If you did would there be consequences? These questions are rhetorical and for thought only. For myself as someone here in the state the crux of the issue is an association knowingly & willfully violated their state commissioner. This is much like a divorce; both sides have culpability in this situation. Neither party has 100% clean hands.

It would depend on what they were asking me or others to do. Some things could be easy to follow. Other things would not be easy to follow. Like someone said if they said that a certain style of shirt was the only thing we could wear and I did not have that shirt. It might be hard to follow that procedure.

I will give you a great example of that right now. We have shirts that we can wear that have an embroidered logo instead of a state patch that is required on the shirt to work a game. Well the word is coming around that if an official wears and embroidery, all officials must match style of shirt. But the problem is that is not in writing and people are making that assumption based on word of mouth from people that had a personal conversation. I am not buying one of the shirts with embroidery on the shirt just too hopefully match others that may or may not have those shirts. Not until I see something in writing or if that policy is expressed at the Rules meeting. And at this point this could be as dicey as this situation, but I think our people will use a little bit of common sense. I know that our administrators do not like certain things, but they have yet to put those things in writing.

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by WAzebra24

Neither party has 100% clean hands.

...and that's the whole problem...

If the Commish had handled things like a commish should, this would indeed be, as some have argued, a local issue.

I would suspect (and having spoken with to some folks in Washington, my suspicion is merited) that this isn't the first time Stordahl has employed the "do not cross me" attitude.

That shows a lack of respect between the commish and the officials. (both ways)

That's not good for any organization.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Please enlighten us and point us to the document where it states that whistles must be a certain color in WA? As others have said earlier in the thread, there is no rule on whistle color in the NFHS manuals.

The WOA by-laws state that officials must conform to WOA uniform standards. It was in the on-line rules clinic and on-line rules test what the uniform standards are and what the process is to get a waiver. And you know good and well that individual states have all kinds of policies/rules that aren't in the NFHS manual.

There is no confusion over the issue. They chose to do their own thing - they violated the by-laws they agreed to support. When they realized they might get nailed for it, they ran to the media to cover their butts and completely misrepresented the situation. And lots of people around the country took up their cause because they didn't know any better.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

The WOA by-laws state that officials must conform to WOA uniform standards. It was in the on-line rules clinic and on-line rules test what the uniform standards are and what the process is to get a waiver. And you know good and well that individual states have all kinds of policies/rules that aren't in the NFHS manual.

You still have not answered or shown where it says that only a certain color of whistle is to be used in the WOA handbook or procedures? I just looked at our uniform procedures and there is nothing about the color of the whistles in even our procedures. And as said before to you this is not basketball. Football officials use all kinds of whistles depending on the individual. Of course black is the standard and the most common, but that does not mean that is all you see. So if they were using a pink whistle that is not a violation unless it is written somewhere. Or would the WOA even make any issue if a official had a white or metal whistle?

Originally Posted by rockyroad

There is no confusion over the issue. They chose to do their own thing - they violated the by-laws they agreed to support. When they realized they might get nailed for it, they ran to the media to cover their butts and completely misrepresented the situation. And lots of people around the country took up their cause because they didn't know any better.

It is obvious there was a dispute over the policy. I am certainly not disagreeing with you on that. But as someone said on another site, it appears that this was in the works long before the game and the Todd decided to send information of his objection just a couple of days before the game. Instead of just letting it ride and fighting another battle, Todd choose to make an issue out of it which and came to a game to make himself part of a story if there was one. Seems to me he could have said nothing and then addressed this at another time and he would come out smelling like a rose. Now he comes off as a jerk or petty. And as I said, if he was not going to assign games to them, just do it and this might not have been as much of a media story. But he allowed everyone to get wind of the attitude and allowed the media to get involved and the country to have a take on the story. It seems like Todd is not as savvy as those that are running for political office around the country and not realizing that when they say something people around the country might take a position on their words or actions.

Peace

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

The WOA by-laws state that officials must conform to WOA uniform standards. It was in the on-line rules clinic and on-line rules test what the uniform standards are and what the process is to get a waiver. And you know good and well that individual states have all kinds of policies/rules that aren't in the NFHS manual.

There is no confusion over the issue. They chose to do their own thing - they violated the by-laws they agreed to support. When they realized they might get nailed for it, they ran to the media to cover their butts and completely misrepresented the situation. And lots of people around the country took up their cause because they didn't know any better.

So answer my question.

Is the white-colored Fox whistle that is available from nearly every officials supply outlet non-conforming to the WOA? What about an official using an old school chrome metal pea-whistle..? I realize I'm splitting hairs, but your defense of the WOA by-laws has some holes in it. Common sense seemed to elude a few people during this entire process. It could've, and in most people's opinions....should've, been dealt with in a much more silent matter. Had the officials been sporting hot pink hats, flags, or shoes....I could see an issue.

I've also been using blue NFL type bean bags for years. Do I need to go back to a white one..? It seems ridiculous that your State, or the FED for that matter, should have to single out the exact color and/or definition of a whistle for an official's use. But to me, it seems ridiculous that this has spun into the big deal that it has. No offense....just my 2 cents.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

So answer my question.

My answer to your question is to repeat that there is no confusion in the state of Washington as to what the proper uniform is, what the provisions are for obtaining a waiver for that uniform, and what the procedures are for those who choose to ignore the provisions. All of that is made very clear to all officials in the state at the preseason meetings and on the stare rules clinics. I don't really care that you don't know what those requirements are...that's not the point. These guys did and said "screw you anyway" to the State Association.

[Mike L]

for all those so worked up into a tizzy over this whole thing, how about going here https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate/index and making a contribution that might actually help make a difference rather than wasting a lot of time and money mailing your whistles and sweat bands to some guy who made a bad decision on where to fight his battle? Showing support is nice, actually giving support is much better.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mike L

for all those so worked up into a tizzy over this whole thing, how about going here https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate/index and making a contribution that might actually help make a difference rather than wasting a lot of time and money mailing your whistles and sweat bands to some guy who made a bad decision on where to fight his battle? Showing support is nice, actually giving support is much better.

I don't understand: I didn't see any pink whistles or red-faced officials at that site. Relevance?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mike L

for all those so worked up into a tizzy over this whole thing, how about going here https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate/index and making a contribution that might actually help make a difference rather than wasting a lot of time and money mailing your whistles and sweat bands to some guy who made a bad decision on where to fight his battle? Showing support is nice, actually giving support is much better.

Just about every donation of money you get something to help bring awareness. I have purchased T-shirts that were given after a donation. Awareness is just as important as what you donate, because more people will know about the disease and will do more to help the causes. There are certain communities that do not get checked because they are unaware of the measures of prevention and the success rate of early detection. Based on the original stories these officials gave a check as well as wore a whistle. Wearing a whistle is a sign of support and I am sure many of the participants had people in their lives that were affected. I know I have so the sign of support sometimes means more than just giving money alone.

Peace

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know I have so the sign of support sometimes means more than just giving money alone.

That basically sums up half of the problems with the obsession with Breast Cancer Month. In reality a cure for breast cancer would be much more beneficial to the world than showing support. Me wearing around a pink wristband isn't going to help cure anything while donating money would actually do something.