[RandyBrown]

Snaq: I appreciate your effort, and for adding “penultimate” to my vocabulary—I had to look it up.

That post of mine does look long, doesn’t it (this one even longer, but in you only have yourself to blame). I try to be careful, in order to avoid having to correct myself, later. Other than the first two paragraphs, my second post in this thread is a series of responses to a number of members’ posts, as you probably noticed—none addressed to you, however. I think the reason I didn’t simply say, “Here’s what I meant to say,” is because I believed I had said what I meant to say.

When I saw the quotes in some of the responses, I realized I hadn’t said it well, but I believed all the pieces were there to communicate my meaning, given the context of NFR’s initial post(s). I didn’t re-read my original post then, but just did, now. I still wouldn’t correct myself in the way you suggest. It’s all there, I think, and as I meant it. Maybe it’s a matter of being easier for me to discern because I authored it. Because I did a fairly poor job of phrasing that penultimate paragraph, I’ll agree that it might require some thought/effort on the reader’s part to understand it (but we’re all used to the same with the Rules Book, right?). Understanding what I was saying probably required recognition of the assumptions I had relied upon when writing it, as well. Only Scrapper and JAR gleaned any of them. For example, I probably should not have assumed that readers would know my first sentences assumed it a given that NFR was making a call, or taking action of some kind. I thought this was implied--NFR told us he was making the push calls. He regarded what he saw as air-worthy fouls, at least in the context of live-ball play he did. I probably should have added language like, “Regarding those dead-ball pushes you are currently calling, consider the following options,” I don’t know.

I’m not going to “defend”, as I don’t view it as mine, in that sense—it stands or falls on its merits. It only reflects where I am at the moment, until I’m persuaded otherwise. That is one disappointment I have in this forum, so far, people seem to be defending themselves and attacking others, pronouncing things right and wrong, rather than just stating the rules they think applicable, and then offering interpretive comment separately that the reader can weigh for himself. I’m seeking a better understanding, not to persuade anyone of anything—use what’s useful. With that said, in response to all that you pronounce me wrong on:

>>If, however, you make this decision for the sole purpose of allowing yourself to call a common foul, you've got integrity issues to worry about.

As you say, “if”. Nothing wrong, there--I agree with you.

>> The problem is your second sentence is as full of wrong as your first. Even morre so, frankly.

In regard to your red highlights: Again, my sentence is not well phrased, nor is it comprehensive or complete, and maybe not sufficiently explicit, either (I swear I just heard someone whisper “failure”). I am counting on a shared assumption with the reader. Since NFR had not hinted that he was calling technical fouls on those dead-ball pushes (and by “push,” I do mean illegal contact), I started by envisioning the common occurrence of the offender pushing as part of a box-out, unaware that no rebound is coming, because he is unaware the shot has already scored. Such an act may appear more violent than it normally would, because offended player likely knows the ball is dead and so is no longer expecting to be pushed. In the name of boxing out, I have seen everything from behind-the-back arm-wrap holds of opponents with fistfuls of the opponent’s backside jersey and shorts, to a mild displacement, to literally backing the opponent off the court, as you have. Regarding NFR’s OP, since B1 represents the shooter’s defender (I assume he chose A3, and B1 rather than B3 for a reason), one would expect B1 to be boxing out the shooter at the time. It was difficult for me to imagine exactly what NFR was talking about with A3 coming over to push B1 after the goal. Isn’t A3 likely occupied by B3? It could be an illegal screen creating the push call, but you would think A3 would know A1 had just shot the ball. Perplexing. It added difficulty to my response. I wanted to be comprehensive while brief, which led to some shared assumptions I expected from readers. Anyway, through the end of your red highlighting, I am suggesting to NFR that unless he deems the contact incidental based on 4-19-1’s subnote (bare with me, here—I know you don’t like the connection), then ignoring the contact would be ignoring a foul, because if it is not incidental by virtue of 4-19-1’s subnote, and it is illegal, then it is either intentional (what I referred to as “common” in my OP), or it is one of the two more severely penalized technicals, flagrant or combative (“fighting”--which I get to, later). There are no other possibilities, are there?

>>We didn't say anything casually, at least not when it comes to how to adjudicate this play. Just because we didn't provide the rule reference doesn't mean it's not there to find. If you can't find it, feel free to ask. Try doing it without getting preachy some time, you'll get better response.

I was referring to NFR’s third post, there (post #5 in the thread), but I can expand that, generally. Maybe NFR was already familiar with 4-4-7d, maybe he wasn’t. I think if he had been familiar, however, he would have asked about when the ball becomes available rather than when it is at the disposal--I got the impression he wasn’t making much use of the books, in general. As forum contributors, why use words other than the books’ when stating a rule? Rules language is concise, and carefully chosen to fit together as a whole. APG summarized 4-4-7d pretty well, I thought, but his mixing of rule and interpretation makes it somewhat confusing. I think NFR and everyone else would be better served to hear the applicable rule(s) first, followed by interpretive commentary, and then applicatory play situations as examples, if practical. In this case, once 4-4-7d is stated, the issue seems pretty simple to me. The whole thing turns on a judgment call regarding “availability.” To my knowledge, the book does not define “available,” so we have to do it for ourselves. My interpretive comment, in this case, would be that NFR simply has to use his own sense of fairness to decide when the ball has become available to the team entitled. Others could add additional rules to the discussion, if applicable, and their own interpretive comments and play situations that help define it for them. As a real-time example of what I’m getting at, generally, you could choose to respond to me, here, by telling me I’m wrong about the book offering no definition for “available,” which some on the forum do, or you go a step further, and give the definition in your own words, but without citation, which many try to do, or you could provide the citation, followed by your own interpretive comments/play situations. Paraphrasing rules can only undermine their meaning. The few threads I have read on this forum all reflect some level of disagreement among members. Some of the disagreement regards rules, some of it regards interpretation, but because the two are not kept separate, it’s difficult to come to a resolution. Because everything is jumbled together, the discussion isn’t very efficient and helpful, I find. As officials, I’d prefer we stick with the book’s language, quoted and cited (or just cited), and then opine from there. That takes more effort, and I don’t always do it, myself, but it focuses the discussion where it needs to be.

As far as preaching, you read what I had to say regarding that. Now, it is up to you. You are the one interpreting it as preaching. Accept that I am learning, and that I have no particular attachment to anything I argue, then you won’t find me preachy--at least not in the offensive way you are, now. Deal with me as you would a True-or-False-type question on an exam that then requires an explanation. Such a question appears “preachy”, but no one takes offense to it. This is an officials’ forum, not Facebook, right? Deal with the merits, and ignore the personality nonsense. I’m ignoring it from you guys—I’ve been mocked plenty by you and others. I don’t know what else to say.