Annnnd I'm Outta Here! (Edit: Or Not)

[LarryW60]

Our Association is implementing a Social Networking policy that will prohibit discussing rules, plays, and things related to the Association on the internet (it hasn't been enacted yet so I'm not violating the rule right now).  The upshot is that I really won't have any reason to post here unless someone wants to discuss a topic unrelated to high school football.  I don't particularly agree with this, but majority rules in these kinds of things.  I want to thank everyone who helped me over the last few years on this site and wish you all a safe and enjoyable season this Fall.
 

しつれいします！
(Please pardon my rudeness for leaving early)

Updated below

[GoGoGo]

That is just messed up!!! I sure hope my association doesn't enact a policy like that because I have learned a great deal from this site and it would hamper further growth if they did.

Thanks for all the questions you have answered for me. Take care!

[george7244]

oh well so much for freedom of speech. 

[Grant - AR]

Our Association is implementing a Social Networking policy that will prohibit discussing rules, plays, and things related to the Association on the internet (it hasn't been enacted yet so I'm not violating the rule right now).  The upshot is that I really won't have any reason to post here unless someone wants to discuss a topic unrelated to high school football.  I don't particularly agree with this, but majority rules in these kinds of things.  I want to thank everyone who helped me over the last few years on this site and wish you all a safe and enjoyable season this Fall.
 

しつれいします！
(Please pardon my rudeness for leaving early)

That's interesting.  Did they give any reasons why they don't want you talking rules, etc. with other officials outside of the association?  I know that's not exactly what they said, but in a nutshell, that's the result of it.

[LarryW60]

They sprung it on us at the first meeting of the year last night and they were starting up a vote on it, but then someone pointed out that the association members had never seen this proposal prior to last night.  So they're tabling the vote until the next big meeting in June.  (So technically I'm not breaking the rules yet.)  In general, what gets proposed gets passed unless it ticks off too many people.  Only a few of our members post online that I know of so I doubt there will be a huge outcry against this proposal.

As for why, I'm not sure.  IIRC, the wording of what was on the screen last night listed Facebook, Twitter, "and other internet forums" and banned discussing games we worked, rules interpretations, and Association business.  It actually looked very similar to Kentucky's new rule.
http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=005581

Maybe there was a legal liability issue that arose this past year that is getting the State's and Association's attention.

[Grant - AR]

IIRC, the wording of what was on the screen last night listed Facebook, Twitter, "and other internet forums" and banned discussing games we worked, rules interpretations, and Association business.

I completely understand the association being against an official discussing specific games, rules interpretations or association business.  I can't think of any off the top of my head from this forum that would fall under any of these...as long as you stay out of the TASO vs UIL stuff on the "Texas" board.   

[With_Two_Flakes]

Fadamor - that's complete madness!  Sites like Refstripes.com are incredibly useful for officials of all levels to improve their knowledge, share officiating experiences, etc.

Being heads up about what you post and where you post is sensible. I wouldnt put anything on Twitter. I wouldnt put anything on Facebook other than on private secret officals only groups. Sites like Refstripes are fine in my view. I think we can probably all agree that specific criticism of individual officials, officials’ decisions, or of schools, coaches or athletes is wrong. But frank discussion about situations is how we improve.

You should speak against the motion and try to lobby enough votes to defeat it at your association meeting or perhaps better is to propose a sensible amendment to rein it in from being such a blanket motion. The Kentucky policy appears sensible apart from the last sentence,
It is also unprofessional to offer rules clarifications or interpretations through these medium without the expressed directive from the appropriate state high school association.
I cannot see what issues they could possibly have with an official helping another official by clarifying how a Rule should be interpreted or how a play should be covered.

[AlUpstateNY]

Just a suggestion, but perhaps you might question the objectives of what your Association is trying to accomplish and suggest they word it in such a way as to not impact other things that may be totally beyond their intentions.  Presuming what might be meant and by comparing it to what is actually intended can sometime sbe very illuminating.

It seems many, if not all of these concerns, rose up after some embarrassing incidences when individuals added some inappropriate comments to various popular "social networking" sites, which represent a miniscule portion of the "Internet".  Just like a thorough and specific understanding of what is included in Rule 2 is extremely important to understanding the rules of the game, precisely.  The same caution applies to establishing any rules that are subject to wide misunderstanding or misinterpretation that can easily cause unnecessary confusion because they may be misunderstood, or misapplied to areas that were beyond the intended scope of their authority.

[LarryW60]

I completely understand the association being against an official discussing specific games, rules interpretations or association business.  I can't think of any off the top of my head from this forum that would fall under any of these...as long as you stay out of the TASO vs UIL stuff on the "Texas" board.  

Well... by starting this thread I've discussed association business so that's one instance;  and here or over in the War Stories section I've discussed (while leaving the particular team details out) things that happened or were said during games I've worked.  Hmm... maybe it was because of me that they're doing this.  <ponders>

They have the proposed addition to the policies posted.  It actually doesn't prohibit interpretations from what I can see, but you just can't use actual games worked as examples to back up your interpretation:

USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

The use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter has grown immensely in both use and popularity. Members of the Association are not prohibited from using social media. However, when using any social media, not just the two mentioned previously, the member must not discuss any game they have participated in, any game to which they have been scheduled, nor any game, past or present, which was assigned by the Association. Additionally, members will not discuss other members of the Association and/or Association business. Violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action.

I actually don't see a big problem with this except for the main definition that's lacking.  It's going to severely curtail what can be said about the games.  For instance, barring a better term or a more restrictive definition, a telephone counts as "social media".  It's going to make it awfully hard for the White Hats to phone-in after-game info that the Commissioner needs ASAP (i.e. disqualifications).  In any case, this is my last (for real) post on the subject.  Only interpretations from now on, I guess.

[Kalle]

Our association here in Finland has a rule that we won't post comments about our own games to sites used by fans and/or coaches. We also won't comment on anything but specific rules questions on such sites, and even then we are to use extreme caution. I think this is a very sensible policy, as it is very easy to inflame a public conversation with an official implying that another official screwed up.

This policy does not apply to sites such as refstripes.com, as this is (predominantly) used by officials, not fans/coaches (and those fans/coaches who are frequently here really qualify as officials).

[HLinNC]

I recently posted on the Fed board, NC's e-mail to all of us from earlier this year.  It is pretty much a list of Do's and Don'ts.  It does not prohibit us but warns of the dire consequences should we mess up.  I think it was made clear to not be visiting and "friending" students on their media pages.  That is something that most school personnel are already prohibited from doing.

I understand what associations are trying to do.  I understand that they don't want to leave too many openings to exploit.  I realize that here and the Fed board and the forum all qualify under probably being restricted under a tight interpretation.  Personally I enjoy engaging in conversation with what are obviously fellow officials on all 3 sites.  I would hope that individual associations leadership can define the difference and not come out of this movement looking draconian.

I, and hope all of us, know not to go on our Facebook page and go "coach blahblah is a real horse's pitoot" or "Cripes, that QB from XYZ high school really played like an idiot last night".  I guess "wow what an epic battle I worked yesterday" is questionable?

[VALinesman]

I would bet dollars to donuts that those attempting to implement rules such as the ones discussed above never logged onto a site such as this. Oh well. While it is sad that it comes down to this, it is telling. Associations need to trust their members to act professionally. High school football officials are not NFL officials. The free exchange of ideas is imperative to our success and growth as officials. While I post here, and at times my posts are pointed, they are countered with ideas that make me reconsider my position. If an association does not believe that an official is acting professionally, the association should deal with it on its own. To make a rule prohibiting an official from speaking to other officials seems to reward ignorance. Sad. Very sad.

[AlUpstateNY]

Gentlemen, with all due respest,I believe you are reading WAY more into this than seems to have been intended.  A reasonable reading of the quote submitted above suggests the concern is directed at "identifying" specific teams, coaches, players, administrators related to specific instances, not discussing, or explaining the instances from a rules perspective. 

For decades it has been sound advice that when questioned about any specific incident, it is wise and recommended to focus on the relevant rule and it's general intention and/or prohibitions rather than get tangled up in how those intentions and/or prohibitions may have been applied to that specific incident.  That advise would clearly apply to electronic explanations keeping any details strictly related to the wording and recognized interpretations of any governing rules and totally avoiding all the "who shot John" nonsense people always try and slant the explanation towards.

If you have yet to accept the harsh reality that the vast majority of non football officials who ask for explicit details about any instances, or rulings you may have personally applied, they are usually interested in gathering details to attack you, rather than seeking honest clarification.  Sad, but that's reality, and it's smart for you not to load their guns.

[James]

Offtopic:
"Who shot John" nonsense

What is that about? I don't get the reference.

[AlUpstateNY]

"Who shot John" reference is to all those anncilary things people tend to bring into discussions that only serve to try and garner sympathy for their side, confuse or misdirect the discussion away from the actual subject.

Example, when you're arguing with your wife, and it's one of the few times you're actually winning the argument, all of a sudden she brings up the fact you let the dog lay on the couch and it will ruin the fabric, and whatever you were initially discussing drifts away as so much smoke.  Wives and coaches are very good at it.

[Atlanta Blue]

Wives and coaches are very good at it.

And coaches' wives above all!

[Curious]

Our Association is implementing a Social Networking policy that will prohibit discussing rules, plays, and things related to the Association on the internet (it hasn't been enacted yet so I'm not violating the rule right now).  The upshot is that I really won't have any reason to post here unless someone wants to discuss a topic unrelated to high school football.  I don't particularly agree with this, but majority rules in these kinds of things.  I want to thank everyone who helped me over the last few years on this site and wish you all a safe and enjoyable season this Fall.
 

しつれいします！
(Please pardon my rudeness for leaving early)

"Fad".  You've contributed as much as you've taken away.  My advice...change your log-in name!

Updated below

[jjseikel]

You're off the hook because this is not a social networking site. It is a football discussion forum.

[Rulesman]

I believe I'd be finding me a new association.

 

[Magician]

You're off the hook because this is not a social networking site. It is a football discussion forum.

Jaybird...your age is showing...discussion forums are a type of social networking site.  I kid only because I love.

[LarryW60]

Yes.  Forums are a social media device.  It's why I was hoping for a more selective term.  The one used is so broad as to cover ANY method of sharing ideas between people.  This means telephone, email, and even snail mail are restricted.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Just change your login name and your little logo and nobody will know who you are.

[LarryW60]

Just change your login name and your little logo and nobody will know who you are.

I would have to create a totally new account.  Just changing the name of this one will also change the name on every post I've submitted so far.  The creator of this thread wouldn't be Fadamor anymore, it would be my new name.  As such it would be relatively easy to figure out who the "new" person is as long as they can remember any of the posts I've made previously.

[Grant - AR]

I would have to create a totally new account...

That would be easy.  In fact, I could create one for you in less than a minute.

[LarryW60]

DISCLAIMER: The following does not contain any references to football games actual or imagined, worked by the author or someone else, or scheduled at a future date.  No one mentioned in this post, real or imagined, is real or imaginary. The posting contains only the views of the author and does not represent the views of his governing association, the state body the association operates under, or the NFHS.
Maybe if I start adding this to the front of my posts?