Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 82
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,073
    Quote Originally Posted by booond View Post
    Who cares? The NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction. Try again.
    Don't need to - you missed my point. If banning adorned headbands is a good rule, why hasn't the NCAA done it?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Fishers, IN
    Posts
    7,553
    The simple truth is that the runner and coach went behind the official's back after he told him he could not wear it. THAT's the offense.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Right next to a Gator filled pond
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    Don't need to - you missed my point. If banning adorned headbands is a good rule, why hasn't the NCAA done it?
    Since when are the NCAA standards the benchmark for what should and should not happen in high school...and in some case NCAA competition? Your response makes no sense.

    steve from duke has the correct response and booond the correct explanation.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    954
    It is never possible to reverse engineer the real-time interactions of a specific rule enforcement. Since none of us were witnesses, second guessing is always invalidated by the key word second!

    Sometimes rules ARE useless or just plain stupid. That never means that officials are justified in looking the other way making no effort to warn, inform or try to remedy a potential infraction before it occurs. If rules are subject to case-by-case interpretation by individual officials in every instance then rules have no meaning.

    Occasionally, over-zealous (bad) officials are more concerned with trapping rule violators than managing an opportunity for all athletes to compete fairly. But it is reckless and unfair to assign wrong motives whenever a DQ occurs. Most officials (whether they rule correctly or in error) are not trying to victimize athletes.

    Also, sometimes coaches and athletes try to manipulate officials (either proactively or retroactively) to find a way around a rule they don't want to follow. I'd bet I am not the only one here to have seen examples of both coaches and athletes outright lying to gain a favorable ruling.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,073
    Quote Originally Posted by jc203 View Post
    Occasionally, over-zealous (bad) officials are more concerned with trapping rule violators than managing an opportunity for all athletes to compete fairly. But it is reckless and unfair to assign wrong motives whenever a DQ occurs. Most officials (whether they rule correctly or in error) are not trying to victimize athletes.
    Agreed. Once a stupid rule (HS has lots of them) is enacted, it is the duty of the official to enforce it to the best of his(/her) ability. I have had to make some sad calls, enforcing rules that I do not agree with, but for which I have a responsibility to uphold. BUT . . . as lonewolf stated, our jobs as officials is to FIRST, do no harm, where harm can be avoided. Wherever I have the ability to interpret a rule (as was clearly the case here), I will do so to keep it a fair competition, but not punish someone for the most stringent case I can make against him.

    This case (IMO) is another instance of an official deciding that HE is somehow being disrespected and must therefore enforce his will. Human nature has always been to abuse power for the ego's sake.

    I applaud all the hard-working officials who try to do their best FOR ATHLETES' sake. I only became a meet referee (I already have a full-time coaching position), because I was sick and tired of seeing officials' putting their own needs above those of the athletes.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui
    Posts
    6,605
    From everything I have read on this matter it appears that the coach should be held accountable and perhaps dismissed from that role, if did tell the runner to go ahead and wear the headband, after being instructed by the chief official not to.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    12,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    This case (IMO) is another instance of an official deciding that HE is somehow being disrespected and must therefore enforce his will. Human nature has always been to abuse power for the ego's sake.

    I'm not sure what the hell more you wanted this official to do. He met with the athlete and coach before the race, observed the headband in question, informed athlete and coach it was illegal, and they made the conscious decision to ignore him. The DQ is 100% on the guilty. Period.

    Face it atticus, your original premise in creating this thread - that an official told the kid and coach it was ok - was wrong, and now you're scrounging to come up with another reason to defend the thread's existence. And failing miserably.

    Quit while you're behind.
    There are no strings on me
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Right next to a Gator filled pond
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post

    This case (IMO) is another instance of an official deciding that HE is somehow being disrespected and must therefore enforce his will. Human nature has always been to abuse power for the ego's sake.
    No it's not. It's a case of an athlete or coach attempting to go around a ruling made by an official.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,073
    Quote Originally Posted by guru View Post
    Face it atticus, your original premise
    My premise has always been that the official was unnecessarily punitive to the athlete. The headband, once turned over, COULD have been OKed, and it was not. That was the problem.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui
    Posts
    6,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    My premise has always been that the official was unnecessarily punitive to the athlete. The headband, once turned over, COULD have been OKed, and it was not. That was the problem.
    You are wrong Atticus. The problem was the coach (and athlete) giving the head official the finger and after being properly DQ'd running to the media to play the religion card.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •