[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

To demonstrate I posted an example of a violation that occurs that we frequently ignore (a post person opposite of the ball with a toe on the lane stripe for 3+ seconds) and an example of something that isn’t really a violation at all that can be called one in the right circumstance.

Here's the deal: A/D is, essentially, written into the rules for fouls in the incidental contact rule. It is not written into the rules for violations. It is, however, considered on some violations, by practice. 3 seconds, as you note, is done this way. Palming is another one that is done that way, although not to the same degree, as is the 10 second FT violation.

I've said it before, but I generally look for one of two criteria before calling these violations. Advantage, or egregious.

Originally Posted by Duffman

Show me where in the rule book it prohibits a defensive player from screaming or counting to five loudly and quickly in the face of a player attempting to inbound the ball. Then show me an official who wouldn’t put a stop to that despite not having the justification to do so (spare me the unsportsmanlike T as that only applies to baiting and taunting).

No, it does not only apply to baiting and taunting. Baiting and taunting is only one of nine articles in 10-3-6 (Commit an unsporting foul....) And even if it did, you could consider this act (screaming in the face of an opponent) taunting or baiting. But the counting is easily included in 10-3-6a, "disrespectfully addressing an official." If the yelling isn't directed at the official, then it's certainly baiting or taunting the opponent.

Aside from that, using the "but not limited to" portion of the rule applies to unsporting technical fouls, not violations. Our point is that you are really stretching the violation rule to apply it to the Free Throw Lane hand jive.

Originally Posted by Duffman

My response that it was a violation of the "I told you to knock that off" rule was not arrogant, or emotional at all reallly. It was merely a factual answer to a direct question.

If you're going to use that rule, you only have the option of a technical foul.

Originally Posted by Duffman

Regardless I don’t think there is much I can accomplish by hanging out here. The little new information I’ve learned isn’t worth the time it takes to sort through the dozen or so daily posts promising free movie downloads, and most of the conversations here turn into a bunch of old ladies arguing about who cheated in bridge last Thursday.

Go or stay, that's up to you. I had initially thought to step in for your defense before you made the crack about blowing through high school ball and being able to count on your partners to help you through your lack of rules knowledge. Until this thread, you had expressed a willingness to learn the rules, particularly the technical foul rules for which you displayed a lack of awareness.

Here, however, you inexplicably dug in your heels. When challenged by the actual rule, your response is to deny arrogance and accuse the guys who know the rule of having some sort of pi$$ing contest. If that's your intent, you won't be missed.