Fake FG Question

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I beileve any time you are working with 4 officials or more and at the HS level and above, start on the sidelines and stay there until the play is over if you are a wing official.

If adhering to your belief, every time, works for you, you are likely better off adhering to what you believe is correct. However, it may be just a tad beyond the reach of your headlights to suggest, or imply, that anyone who might disagree somewhat with your belief is "wrong".

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If adhering to your belief, every time, works for you, you are likely better off adhering to what you believe is correct. However, it may be just a tad beyond the reach of your headlights to suggest, or imply, that anyone who might disagree somewhat with your belief is "wrong".

That's fine. I think I'll stick with what I have been taught by excellent high school officials and those working college and NFL. You stick with what you were taught 20+ years ago.

Word count: 50
Comma count: 6

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

That's fine. I think I'll stick with what I have been taught by excellent high school officials and those working college and NFL. You stick with what you were taught 20+ years ago.

Kind of what I was thinking -- How to Learn Officiating by Watching ESPN Classic....

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

That's fine. I think I'll stick with what I have been taught by excellent high school officials and those working college and NFL. You stick with what you were taught 20+ years ago.

No need to get snarky. If you bother to learn to broaden your perspective, you might make it to 20+ years. No matter how much you think you know, or how good you think you might be, neither rarely equates to what you actually need to learn, or how good you actually are.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If adhering to your belief, every time, works for you, you are likely better off adhering to what you believe is correct. However, it may be just a tad beyond the reach of your headlights to suggest, or imply, that anyone who might disagree somewhat with your belief is "wrong".

It's not OUR belief ... it's the beliefs of the folks that write the manual, and those that train us and evaluate us. This is not a "do what works for you" area. Additionally, I fail to see ANY benefit to working on the field in a 4 (or more) man system. The distance gained is immaterial - your angle is far more important. I'm not understanding why you seem to think that because YOU believe it, it's accepted. It's not.

(3 man - or 2 - is a completely different animal... without an umpire wings HAVE to pinch in, or R is in for a very very long day.)

[Welpe]

Even with three man mechanics, I don't pinch in until the play is over. Too much is lost by being on the field in my opinion.

bison, you are obviously shooting moonbeams beyond your headlights, which you may, or, may, not, realize but clearly whatever works best for you, is how you should go, if you know, how to do so,maybe, you'll understand that, once you get enough, experience to become, a clock, operator.


Edit: needed a few more ,,,,,,,,,,

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Even with three man mechanics, I don't pinch in until the play is over. Too much is lost by being on the field in my opinion.

bison, you are obviously shooting moonbeams beyond your headlights, which you may, or, may, not, realize but clearly whatever works best for you, is how you should go, if you know, how to do so,maybe, you'll understand that, once you get enough, experience to become, a clock, operator.


Edit: needed a few more ,,,,,,,,,,

Honestly, it depends on a lot of things. If I'm doing 8th or 9th grade with 3, I'm staying on the sideline. Saturday with 2nd graders? Absolutely. Also - if I have 2 games that day, sideline it is. 6? I'm going to cheat in more likely - not just for me but for my crew who is likely also working 6.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm not understanding why you seem to think that because YOU believe it, it's accepted. It's not.

Perhaps what you have trouble understanding, is that whether or not you accept a concept, or not, is totally immaterial. If you feel more effective camped out on a sideline for EVERY situation, knock yourself out, but angle has nothing to do with anything, unless you're incapable of responding to what your confronted with.

[Reffing Rev.]

Not to stir the pot any, but Nebraska School Activities Association tells us that when ball is on opposite hash wings should be on the numbers.

So maybe when in Rome one should do as the Romans do.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Not to stir the pot any, but Nebraska School Activities Association tells us that when ball is on opposite hash wings should be on the numbers.

So maybe when in Rome one should do as the Romans do.

An exception that proves a rule. Likely a state run by a 40 year official who doesn't think that change is a good thing. I saw the same thing in LA in basketball where until recently they insisted on having the center official opposite the table (and I have no idea if this has changed).

I worked 2 games 3-man this season, neither by choice. Told the wings to stay off the field as usual and that I would run up and spot the football between plays -- if the play was in the side zone, that wing could choose to pinch in and spot the ball if they chose. I ran more, but it's better (IMO) than lining up R-L-U and better than having the wings compromise their field coverage just to get a football spotted.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

An exception that proves a rule. Likely a state run by a 40 year official who doesn't think that change is a good thing. .

This may come as a shock to you Rich, but somehow officiating football actually survived (some might even say "thrived") before you came along. Your attitude, related to 40 year officials, might have a tad more credibility if you waited to see if you actually lasted that long first.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This may come as a shock to you Rich, but somehow officiating football actually survived (some might even say "thrived") before you came along. Your attitude, related to 40 year officials, might have a tad more credibility if you waited to see if you actually lasted that long first.

I've got 24 years in this racket. The difference between me and other 24 year officials is that I'm willing to embrace change that's put in place to make us better. When I started as a wing official, we worked well onto the field and tried to stay with or ahead of the play. We worried so much about getting the spot of the ball we missed a ton of stuff around the ball carrier. It's so much easier for us now to work (1) off the field and (2) slightly behind the play (and rely on cross-field mechanics rather than staying even with the football) that it's a wonder people didn't think of it before.

Good officials evolve. Those that don't or won't evolve should get out of the way. They *certainly* shouldn't be setting policy with respect to mechanics and then tell other people that's the only right way to work.

(I managed to write 2 full paragraphs and only used one comma. I'll try harder next time.)

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps what you have trouble understanding, is that whether or not you accept a concept, or not, is totally immaterial. If you feel more effective camped out on a sideline for EVERY situation, knock yourself out, but angle has nothing to do with anything, unless you're incapable of responding to what your confronted with.

I think you should seriously rethink that statement.

Although it has nothing really to do with officiating, your sentence structure is appalling. If you can't write well you will give the impression of not really knowing what it is you are talking about.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I think you should seriously rethink that statement.

Although it has nothing really to do with officiating, your sentence structure is appalling. If you can't write well you will give the impression of not really knowing what it is you are talking about.

Apparently simply ignoring you isn't quite conveying the suggestion that I'm doing my level best to try and ignore you. Not that I agree with, or accept your analysis, but what is it that suggests to you that your ridiculous comments and apparent obsession with my grammer, or your perception of a lack thereof, has anything to do with ANYTHING that matters?

Have you ever considered finding a hobby, or volunteering somewhere?

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Apparently simply ignoring you isn't quite conveying the suggestion that I'm doing my level best to try and ignore you. Not that I agree with, or accept your analysis, but what is it that suggests to you that your ridiculous comments and apparent obsession with my grammer, or your perception of a lack thereof, has anything to do with ANYTHING that matters?

Have you ever considered finding a hobby, or volunteering somewhere?

Obviously you are not ignoring me or your best is grossly insufficient. And to which analysis are you referring? The one where I state you should rethink your statement that angle on the play does not matter or that your sentence structure is appalling?
Poor sentance structure and an inability to accurately convey your message on a written internet opinion board is analogous to showing up to a game with an ill fitting, dirty uniform and forgetting some equipment. No-one is going to believe you have the slightest idea what you are doing or what you are talking about.
Also, just to set the record straight, I believe this is the first or maybe the second time I've ever commented on your extremely sub-par writing ability. Perhaps in your world that qualifies as "obsession", of course you've shown time and again you live in quite a different world than the rest of us.