Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey
Probably not, sir. I'm actually a middle-aged dude, who started this avocation later than most (unless you count that stint as a college intramural ref a couple of decades ago). If you think you're addressing a hot-shot kid who wants to show the old school something new, then you have me all wrong.
Yes, one must back up his/her opinions with facts. I'm completely behind that paradigm, and I believe the aforementioned interpretation change in the case book backed my opinion. However sir, since you threw the jab that I and the entire NFHS are wrong with our opinions, I thought you could take my joke about change. Perhaps I was off-base about that.
No-one said anyone was better than anyone; that's an incorrect inference. You're absolutely right that a "lack of effort in learning the rules" is harmful. (Believe me, I don't lack effort there.) But, I've also seen a resistance to change have a similarly harmful effect.
|
bainsey - remember I told you was grumpy for having to be inside at the office while my kids were at the pool, so hopefully that might explain some of my curtness in my previous response. Please don't take it too personally. Today I've had my dip in the pool, and an adult beverage, so I feel a lot better now.
Part of the fun of this forum is discussing particular plays, and how the rules apply. If you've been here long enough you've seen excellent minds disagree on how a rule or play should be interpreted, so obviously things aren't cut-and-dried on everything. We've also seen a few rulings and case plays come out where most of us scratch our heads and wonder what the heck the rules committee was thinking. Sometimes the committee even seems to make changes based on some of the discussions that happen here. (Big Brother NFHS could be watching us now...
)
Yes, I'm aware the case play currently says it's a traveling violation. I can also point to the previous case book that says the exact same play is considered an illegal dribble. So, what changed? That's the point of my response and this discussion - using the fundamentals of the dribble and travel rules, nothing has changed, and I believe it should still be an illegal dribble. My opinion (and it is only an opinion; I have no insider info that backs it up) is that the committee moved the case play because of the first part of it (a) does belong in the travel section, and (b) went along for the ride, so to speak, and they should've split them up. (See my response to Camron above for more details.) That's why I think the committee's ruling is incorrect in this case. Maybe they have another basis for changing it; if so, I wish they would expand on the reasoning in the case book so it's easier to understand. Does that mean I'm better or smarter than anyone there? Hell, no. But I can certainly have an opinion, and I feel pretty confident based on the underlying rule basics involved.
This is why rules study helps - we may see a case play, and see the ruling, but it helps to know the fundamentals of why the ruling came about to help us understand the game better and how it should be called. It's not simply about resisting change, it's understanding the reasons for changes.