Thread: more firsts
View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 08, 2009, 10:33am
CMHCoachNRef CMHCoachNRef is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
And does your research also tell you that there are many coaches that know the game but don't have a clue when it comes to rules?

Does your research also tell you that there are many coaches who don't know the game OR the rules?

Btw, just to be explicit, what is the exact percentage of officials that know the rulebook but don't know the game, according to your extensive research?

PS- my own extensive research tells me that 41.36% of all coaches know the game but don't know the rules. And 49.85% of all coaches don't know the game or the rules. Which leaves 8.79% of all coaches that know both the rules and the game. I know that figure might sound high to my officiating brethren, but that's what my extensive research came up with.
Jurassic,
Depending upon your threshold for "knowing the rules", the 8.79% number could be very high to moderately high -- I am quite certain that far less than 2 in 23 understand the last-touch-first-touch back court violation, for example.

I can tell you that I can confidently state that I understand the game of basketball better than 95+% of the coaches. And, no, I am not a coach anymore.

I was NOT comparing the knowledge of the coaches to the officials when I made the statement (simply because I have both coach and ref in my user name, do not assume that statements I make are comparing the two).

It is the officials, NOT the coaches, who are the ones who must know and interpret the rules. I stand by my statement that many (means more than three -- a couple being two, a few being three or so -- without specifying a number or a specific percentage) of the officials know the rules, but do not necessarily understand the game. The number of coaches -- and associated percentages -- who do/don't know the game is irrelevant in this discussion as they are not the ones responsible for enforcing the rules.

Therefore, it makes sense to me to modify the current wording describing illegally using the foot to "intentionally contacting the ball with the foot (or leg)."

P.S. I think the change in wording would help the coaches understand the rule a bit better as well.
Reply With Quote