Fake FG Question

[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.)

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I've got 24 years in this racket. 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.)

I don't think there's anything remotely indicated by what I've tried to suggest that comes anyway near telling anyone, "that's the only right way to work.[/B], although I do get exactly that impression from your tone.

Officials in other areas often have tendencies to "evolve" as they decide is best for them to evolve, sometimes for good, sometimes not. Sometimes people with 20+ years evlove at a different pace than others, which sometimes is good, sometimes not.

By the way, what do commas have to to do with football?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't think there's anything remotely indicated by what I've tried to suggest that comes anyway near telling anyone, "that's the only right way to work.[/B], although I do get exactly that impression from your tone.

Officials in other areas often have tendencies to "evolve" as they decide is best for them to evolve, sometimes for good, sometimes not. Sometimes people with 20+ years evlove at a different pace than others, which sometimes is good, sometimes not.

By the way, what do commas have to to do with football?

Word count: 89
Comma count: 7

To be direct (you don't seem to pick up subtlety very well), you have a tendency to write with an unusually high number of commas. Many of them are not needed. If any officials are grammar teachers you provide many examples of incorrect punctuation for them to use in their classes. Not that it has anything to do with your ability to officiate.

[mj]

Originally Posted by richmsn

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.)

+1

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by mj

+1

Ditto.

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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.

I'm trying my best to ignore you, success is not guaranteed. Some challenges are more persistent than others and require more effort. Since the notion that moving in a few steps when a formation is on the other side of the field, somehow creates an "angle" problem for a wing official is really just silly, I must have been referencing your analysis of "sentence structure" whch simply doesn't matter.

My referene to "obsession" mght be directed at your often repeated attempts to try and make youself sound smart by focusing on insignificant trivia, which rarely matters nor relates, in any meaningful way, to whatever is being discussed which few likely care about. Whatever floats your boat, fills your sails, makes you feel happy or you think makes you sound smart.

What amazes me is that you would actually think that your impression of someone's "sentence structure" was a relevant or appropriate issue to inject in a discussion related to officiating mechanics. I might suggest, that to be effective, analogies need to make some degree of sense and relate somehow.

Now, I've answered your questions, might you answer one for me. Just how long are you prepared to continue beating a horse long past death, that has absolutely nothing to do with the original subject at hand? Could there possibly be a relevant point you are so feebly trying to make? Sorry, that's two questions.

Thanks for your advice on helping me communicate better, but somehow I've managed to muddle along OK to this point, although I continue to hold out hope that God's not yet finished with me.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Now, I've answered your questions, might you answer one for me. Just how long are you prepared to continue beating a horse long past death, that has absolutely nothing to do with the original subject at hand? Could there possibly be a relevant point you are so feebly trying to make?

Sure, no problem at all.

I'm willing to continue beating a horse as long as I'm think there's even the faintest possibility the horse may eventually see the errors of his ways. Perhaps it's because I'm a romantic optimist or have some hope for the betterment of my fellow officials no matter how obstinately they hold to their error filled opinion. In your case, that hope is quickly fading. But I can always pursue the dream that the nonsensical ravings of your lunatic mind will not infect those newer officials that stumble upon your rants if they also have the chance to see my counterpoints.

My relevant point remains, your statement that "but angle has nothing to do with anything" is ridiculously wrong. It does not matter how you attempt to hide it by either your tortured writing or logic.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Sure, no problem at all.

I'm willing to continue beating a horse as long as I'm think there's even the faintest possibility the horse may eventually see the errors of his ways.

My relevant point remains, your statement that "but angle has nothing to do with anything" is ridiculously wrong. It does not matter how you attempt to hide it by either your tortured writing or logic.

I'm always willing to be educated, Mike, perhaps you could explain how moving forward a maximum of 18', (the distance from the sidline to the numbers) when the ball might be moved a maximum of 53' 4" farther away (the distance between the near and far hash marks) presents an "angle" problem. If I follow your superior logic, are you recommending that when a ball is snapped from the near hash mark, the best position, so as to avoid angle problems, would be 18' beyond the sideline ?