Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey
No prob, M. You say it's an illegal dribble, because it can't be a travel. I say it's a travel, because it can't be an illegal dribble. Tomato, tomahto. Violation called, game moves on.
That's the beauty of being a newer official. We accept change better.  |
Remember, I'm still grumpy (but not as grumpy as some here can be...) - but now who's being condescending? You're a newer official, so you're better than me because you can accept change better?
Fine, you've got you're opinion that it can't be an illegal dribble. Since you're a newer official, you're probably closer to having been in school than I am, so you should probably understand this phrase: show your work. I've given you rules backing (shown my work) for my opinion as to why it is an illegal dribble. It is even backed by the specific case play from '06-'07, and before. The only backing to your opinion that it's a travel is the exact same case play. Fine, then tell
why it's now a travel, when it was an illegal dribble before? How do you know for sure the NFHS didn't make a mistake in changing the case from illegal dribble to travel? In the OP, was a pivot foot established? Was A1 holding the ball the entire time? Was pivot foot lifted before starting a dribble? Why do any of these questions matter? Because they have to do directly with determining a traveling violation, and they have nothing to do with the OP, or the case play, for that matter.
It can be fun discussing rules and how they apply to various situations. It makes one think, and at the least, makes one read through the rules and the various case plays to determine the intent of the rule. But simply dismissing a differing opinion from you by saying you accept change better because you're younger, or older officials are set in their ways and less likely to change, then you've shown a lack of effort in learning the rules. And that will hurt you in the long run. But, look at the bright side, you may never get to become one of them "older officials".
