Question Number: 16171

Other 7/31/2007

sonny of san francisco, usa asks...

This question is a follow up to question 16166

Seems that only my attitude is up for discussion.

Consider that the moderator said he would fail me on an assessment if I dealt with KFTPM-Reduce to equate according to my understanding and he hoped I had enough money to pay for the 2 make up assessments I would then need.(in personal e-mail to me, I don't remember if it was in his posted responses.)He confirmed that he indeed would fail me even after we learned I was correct. He did say he would write a modification to assessment and leave it up to higher level to determine if I passed or not.

Nothing mentioned about any other negatives in my performance.So one item, even if I was wrong - and I was not - on a issue that the panel itself describes as confusing, illogical and often misunderstood would result in assessor failing me. I am an assessor and never would fail someone solely based on referees decision on a very confusing aspect of the laws. Assessor's roll is not to fail but to help ref improve. Wonder what the director of assessment would say about the performance of the assessor

I wonder what other members of the panel
think about the attitude of this assessor.

Then another panelist states: "So, you can gloat that you are indeed illogical but have been routinely incorrect.I have no idea what you asked Jim Allen but I am certain you worded it incorrectly."

Not sure what he has been reading - Where did I glote that I have been illogical and routinely incorrect??? Only thing close to gloating was --"Whoops I was correct."
And then to claim what I wrote to Jim Allen was incorrect without seeing the message seems to show a very defensive attitude on his part. How dare you accuse me of something without the facts.

Would this pass the attitude test Esse discussed??

Any wonder that the responses by the panel caused me to fight back.

Granted I could have couched my words nicer - seems the members of the panel could have done the same.

Probably a good time to drop the subject.

Panel has my e-mail and I would be happy to continue discussion off line

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Sonny as a non USSF referee I am not bound by the ATR covenant but I do accept they are generally pretty good at following what FIFA wants since FIFA is actually where they take their lead. Those on this panel spend many hours giving back and not to belabour a sore point but respect is a two way street and we have been downloading some one way traffic soo I suggest this be the final public post. As you mentioned any one of us can respond privately if we choose to do so and you can post directly to mrref without a panel reponse. Self rightousness is a poor character trait but I do understand the pride and standing up for what one belives. I suppose no matter what response I give there will be some thing to pick at it is just difficult to explain. Those here worked very very hard to find the truth when they recieved your 1st post and initially were told ok by those they answer too, then told no, then told maybe which is why ALFRED weighed in. However, right or wrong, in the end the ATR was decreed and those under its authority acknowledge that fact take some credit for making it an issue but understand MUCH disscussion occured before this was decided. I still belive the issue COULD be resolved differently in the end but perhaps not, we will see!
Cheers