Pink cancer pins

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Cobra

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.

No one said it was going to cure anything all by itself. But like a lot of diseases and conditions, the more awareness the more people change people's behavior is a good thing. If you do not want to wear a wristband that is on you.

Peace