Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
That is why comments from Jim drive me crazy. People will read this and think they have to call a foul when no advantage is gained so we can send a message. The rulebook is not suggesting that all fouls are touching, so I really do not see where people get that idea from.
|
Please show me where in my post I said that "all touching is a foul" (what I think you were trying to say before I drove you crazy}.
I will shine your patent leather shoes if you can.
First post - "I believe this assertion to be false. If the referees called every hand contact as a foul, the players would stop using their hands, and the number of whistles would remain the same. Or the players would foul out, and eventually get the message.
It's like saying if we call double dribbles, we'll interrupt the flow of the game, so let's allow double dribbles.
The number of fouls called in games has not seemed to me to have significantly decreased over the years despite the allowal of more contact. Years ago there were a lot of cheap fouls called. Now there are a lot of hard fouls called. Which is better for play? Which is safer for the players?"
Second post - "LOL.
Look at it from a player's point of view. If you tell a player he's not allowed to dribble with two hands, he tries his best not to dribble with two hands. How many double-dribbles a game do you call?
Another example. It's illegal to wear jewelry. When you tell a player to remove their jewelry, how often do they come back into the game wearing the jewelry?
Any cut and dry, explicitly worded rule will be followed as long as it's enforced. As soon as officials let it go, the players will try to get away with it."
Now if it's the last paragraph you are upset about, I understand. It's just my humble opinion.
BTW, I don't disagree with the Tower Principle, just Bunn's explanation of it.