Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
You don't see simultaneous lane-line free throw violations in the rule book either, do you? Or maybe a dribbler losing possession of the ball in the front court, falling into the backcourt and then coming back into the front court to legally touch the ball?
It seems that there's a whole buncha things that you can't see in the rule book, isn't there? Doesn't mean that they aren't in the rule book though- just that you can't see them.
So far, you're 0 for 3 in 3 different forums in the last day. You'll never admit to it though.
Feel free to respond. I wont; I don't know why I bothered in the first place anyway, but I'm done trying to talk sensibly with you- again. It never works and it's just a waste of time.
|
I was wrong and misunderstood the BC violation question. I do not think there is a simultaneous violation for lane line violations (but there are if one is a lane line violation and the other violation is not related to the lane line).
Either way it goes, the NF does not use the term "moving screen" in their literature at this time. They once did and went over backwards to try to make it clear that incidental contact and other aspects of the rule applied. Then we have not seen that terminology since. You are the only person that I know that even tries to pass that crap off as current interpretation or current thought on this issue. All the officials that I work with or talk to on a regular basis do not use the term "moving screen” as you have. Only rookie officials or not very respected officials I know use that term. Also, you are not from the place I am and I do not work for you. You can tell people whatever you like about what you think. If I told Harry Bohn that "Jurassic Referee said that there is such thing as moving screens” he might start laughing hysterically. If I said that people would say, "Who the hell is that?" Then they would start laughing hysterically harder than the first time when I told them you were a person on an internet discussion board. I realize you think all your posts have some official tone to them but they do not. You have even had the gall to tell people that their local IAABO interpreters were crazy because they do not agree with you. I might be 0-3, but you are 0-infinitity. I know you think you are the Czar of this board and everything you said holds water, but it does not. I cannot take a 3 to 4 year old rulebook and use it today when explaining.
I am still looking for just one person that is considered influential to side with your point of view on this topic. When I was at camp and someone used that term you would have thought they committed a crime using that terminology. Maybe you should debate with all the clinicians and state officials that hate that term. I guess they are crazy because they are not big and bad as you think you are.
Peace