View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 26, 2008, 12:42am
Back In The Saddle Back In The Saddle is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
This is obviously not true. A bomb could go off, and the shooter could scream, throw the ball in the air, and drop to the floor, and it still could go into the basket. The result of the shot does not prove/disprove disconcertion.
Man, you must work games in some pretty rough neighborhoods!

You are correct, the outcome of the shot does not prove anything. But proof is irrelevant. Only our judgment is relevant. And on those rare occasions where no incendiary devices are involved, how can you reasonably argue that a kid who makes a free throw was disconcerted? Like I said earlier, "I'm judging that the kid wasn't disconcerted if he makes the free throw. Once again, it's a matter of cause and effect, or no effect in this case." To judge otherwise is not only unreasonable, it is also irrelevant. Because if the kid makes the throw, disconcertion is ignored. So why would you judge otherwise?

Which leaves us with only one interesting judgment. If the kid misses, was he disconcerted? I still assert this judgment is entirely based on cause and effect, the opponent's intent is irrelevant.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming

Last edited by Back In The Saddle; Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:11am.
Reply With Quote