Photography, and in particular photographers rights are a passion of mine. Perhaps it is that passionate response you are picking up on.
If you are offended I am sorry, I am blunt and I am honest, many times I know that comes across differently in text as it does in person. For that I apologize.
You say you are not the one calling, I believe you. But for the person that is calling, the next time the phone rings from a blocked number, I have an air horn waiting for you.
There is one thing I want to "flip the script" on so to speak. You make the following statement.
Photography is every bit a right as is free speech. Would you ever think to ask a person to ask you permission before they spoke with another within ear shot of you?
I understand how you feel, and maybe it was the use of the word icky that ruffled my feathers, I have had to go to court lately with my own neighbors who have accused me of being a child molester because I have a security camera setup on the front of my home. I then got to explain to an aged judge why his interpretation of the 1st amendment was not only different than SCOTUS, but flat out unconstitutional which made for an interesting court case and a pissed off judge. A case which thankfully went my way despite the judges lack of ability to understand that death threats via text are every bit as valid as via speech and in fact are more damning given their traceability.
Perhaps I am a bit touchy, but the simple matter is, if there is a paid tog on the field, and you are asked not to be on the field but do so anyway and then in turn give away images the photog would have been able to sell to help raise money for the league, that's just downright wrong.