The Official Forum - View Single Post

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #51 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 12, 2004, 11:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Above is the original play we have been discussing. If Team A had used its two smallest players to effect the moving screen would the recreation department had issued a directive that this type of play is to be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. I think not. The fact that Team A used its two biggest players is what has everybody's briches in a bind.

The fact is that the team did use it's two biggest players, we know what happened, and most of us agree that the league can make such a determination.

Since the team didn't use the two smallest players, we don't know how the league would have ruled, so it's pointless to speculate on it.

But that is just the point, Team A used its tWo largest players to set a moving screen, what difference does the size of a player has to do with the situation? "Nothing, absolutely nothing!"

This was decision borne out of political correctness, plain and simple.

Mark, why isn't this unfair to the larger players who aren't learning anything of value? Why aren't you upset about what it does to 8-year-old girls to be set up as objects of fear and loathing? I can't see what this has to do with political correctness!

The recreation department set up these girls as objects of fear and loathing by issuing such a stupid directive. If the girls's coach who designed this play had used the two smallest girls on the team to set the screen in this play not a word would have been said. The officials would have officiated as per the rules and the game would have gone on.

The directive was just political correctness run amok. Instruct the officials to apply the guarding/screening rules and the problem would have gone away on its own.