John Wayne would have given her a come back to reality slap, a shot of whiskey to calm her nerves, then a big 'ol kiss as she slowly melts into his arms.

Whose name is on the check you're getting paid by?

If they told you right now that the football game is over, this is now a soccer game, would you stay on to officiate it?

I am missing your point. What do you mean whose name is on the check? Who is saying the game is over and who has jurisdiction to make that determination?

Peace

Maybe you'd care to elaborate on this.

Not hard to do with one of his posts lately. I hesitate to call it circular logic.

And when said school hires a plumber to fix the leaking sprinkler system, the administrator can tell him the job is done while wearing a raincoat in the office.

Where are you trying to take this? A team lost a big game and a parent went ballistic and accosted a game administrator. It sounds like the administrator tried to be patient and explain reality to the parent, who clearly lost it, and eventually gave up trying to reason with her and walked away.

Verifying her insanity, she subsequently sent a bunch of e-mails to further her complaints, which I presume also fell on deaf ears. The game is history, one team won, which requires that one team had to lose and life goes on.

I don't see where anyone did anything wrong, other than one parent blowing a gasket, which can be an unfortunate byproduct of the excitement generated by a great game.

Think how fortunate we all are, that when we go home, THAT WOMAN is not waiting for us screaming, "You won't believe what happened today".

Honestly, I think he was looking for EXACTLY the response he got in the first few posts. He was looking for support for his position that he should NOT have interfered with the game. And he got it in spades. I don't think the OP was expecting to be told that interfering with the game was OK.

To finish my post...

The executive board of the league, the GMs of both teams, the league president, vice president, and secretary, the head of officials, and the head of officials from another league in the area (thereby being completely neutral to the game), had a meeting last night, and viewed the entire game film, so that the issue could be put to rest completely.

and guess what? None, zero, zip of her allegations were evident in the game. It was a hard fought, competitive game, with high emotions and was controlled completely and flawlessly by the officials (which it was also determined that the 4 game officials had a combined 65 years of officiating experience at the high school level).

The executive board will be relaying its findings back to said crazy lady... along with a request for an apology to the administration for the berating that followed the game and the threats made in emails since. If the apology is not made, the parent faces a suspension heading into next year.

So she goes from demanding ejections to receiving one herself... justice comes full circle.

Thanks for the help and the support on this issue, I always hold the officials in our league on a very high level, I respect the game and the people who are charged to enforce the rules of the game. Your jobs are not easy and you deal with the emotions and craziness on the most professional of levels.

thanks for all you do

(oh, I'm the administrator in question....fyi)...

Hold on here, was this youth league? Your OP mentioned Nebraska HS regulations so I guess we assumed this was at a HS game. Your use of the term administrator implies this was school ball as well.

If this was youth league, then this explains it all. You should have mentioned it in the original post. Those kind of antics are just another day at the office for youth football and why many officials prefer not to work at that level if they don't have to.

Yep.

Peace

I'm saying that if someone hires you for an expert's job, then you do the job you were hired to do as you understand it. However, if in the middle of the job the person who hired you changes what you understood to be the specs, you have the option of completing the job under the new spec or quitting at that point, and then it's a question of whether you should be paid pro rata or what. That sort of thing came up all the time on "The People's Court".

:confused:

Just stop.

I get it now. This is satire.