Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond
Can someone recap the 2 sides of this debate so I can decide which side I'm on? I've lost track of what this discussion is about.
|
Rich said that he would rule a F2 technical.
I replied and said I would rule a F2 personal since that ball was not entirely through the net, but I acknowledged that it was very close and at the end of the day wouldn't be a huge deal (since the penalty is the same except for potentially the shooter and the throw-in spot).
Rich also acknowledged that it was very close and without a monitor he would understand why officials may error on the personal/technical aspect of this play.
JRut then went on a tangent and said that the ball wasn't even close to being dead and basically implied that it would be the end of the world if you ruled an F2TF on this instead of an F2PF. Said coaches would complain and you have to "beat the tape" which no one disputed, but not really relevant to the discussion. I responded that many officials don't even understand the difference between the two fouls, what makes you think the average coach would know? As long as the player is ejected and the offended team gets two FTs and the ball, no one will lose sleep. He implied that it is worse to rule the ball dead when it is actually live than vice-versa, then when asked to defend his point he didn't. Then he implied I didn't care about "beating the tape" and spilled off his resume, again not even addressing the irrelevance/illogicality of his points.