Pink cancer pins

[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.