Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
It is interesting because it does bring up several questions that are related to the thread you're referring to.
By rule, this is a "T". Personally, I wouldn't call it though....and I'd also bet Lark's left nut that we end up with a consensus supporting that stance in this particular situation.
Sooooo....is the end result that we officials are determining whether something should be called no matter what direction the rulesmakers give us? As in the case of when a swung elbow that missed was an automatic "T" by rule, and that rule was almost universally ignored because we thought the punishment didn't fit the crime in all cases? This situation is something like that imo.
Maybe the bottom line is that we think too damn much sometimes and should just follow the rules. Maybe if we all did call 3-seconds strictly by the rule, the teams would adjust and we wouldn't have to talk players out of the paint.
And maybe that's why officiating is as much an art as it is a science.
And maybe I'm thinking too damn much for this early in the morning.
No matter what though, Jeff, I'm still calling a "T" if a player swears loud enough to be heard in the stands(unless he broke a leg or something, of course).  |
Agree with the above. But the same question exists - so if a majority of us disagrees with a direct rule and/or interp, should we just not call it?
Would this be the same with the dreaded backcourt interp - should we simply not call it the way the interp states, simply because we don't agree with it?
In either case above, how do we answer the person who asks us why we simply didn't follow the rule? JR, you have said consistenly over the years that "rules rulz", and that we cannot go wrong if we follow them, no matter what we feel or think about certain ones. What makes this one different?