Thread: Whaddya got?
View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 11, 2011, 08:57pm
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,489
I am from Missouri!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
You keep saying that you are giving a T for taunting, but what exactly constituted the taunting? Did the player say something to the opponent? Nope. Did he make a gesture towards him?
Nope.
I do not recall that 10-3-6c Note, says anything about gesturing is the only form of taunting. Now if you can find where that is the only kind of taunting that is approved, then show that to me. Is there a case play that accompanies that and gives such directive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
What he did was jump/land on him. He purposely made CONTACT with an opponent. This is no different than if he had run over and chest-bumped him, or as Scrapper wrote, punched him. The fact is that you are trying to characterize the action of contacting an opponent as taunting. As an unsporting technical foul BY RULE must be NONCONTACT, that is where you are in error.
Can you show me any rule that eliminates any act that is considered a T that cannot involve contact at all other than fighting rules? I do not think you will find such interpretation or ruling from the NF in any literature that suggests that this cannot take place. So if a player dunks on an opponent and he makes contact by putting his nuts directly in the face of the opponent on purpose, you are suggesting that we can only call a PC foul because the player is still considered airborne? Again, find me that ruling and we can go there. You are good at showing 10 year old rulings, so that should be something you can come up with now. There has to be something that supports your “absolute” position here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
As for the "that guy" stuff, that is simply you failing to have an intelligent argument, so you resort to a personal insult. How sad. I'm not going to stoop to such tactics. I'll just stick to discussing the rules.
PS By my count only one other person echoed that thought, so your "plenty here" statement is also incorrect.
Actually it was someone else that quoted me about you being "that guy" and changed my words. I simply said that I do not want to be that guy that makes a ruling that almost no one supports. And I do not know of anyone that would take the position you are taking and making it so black and white where only taunting or T foul involves absolutely no contact. I have been doing this awhile and I am confident that no one I work for or with would have a problem with such ruling. And again you have only made this about me as just about everyone in this thread has suggest that this be a T is what they would call.

On the first page of this thread, I counted 9 people that either alluded to a T or said that they would T Rondo in this case. You came in on this conversation on comment #28 after everyone but one person claimed they would even call a T and that person admitting that they were young and reconsidered their position. And the person that responded right after you also said he would T the Rondo. Again if anyone has made this conversation personal it has been you. I have not seen you respond to anyone else and telling them they are wrong or tell those they need to know the rules or what they should do. I guess I am that powerful that I have that much influence on other grown people that have been officiating for some time to tell them what they should say about this play.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote