What Am I Missing Here ???

[deecee]

I will apply common sense if this ever happens.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

I will apply common sense if this ever happens.

Isn't calling the game according to the rules the common sense thing to do for an official?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Isn't calling the game according to the rules the common sense thing to do for an official?

In absurd cases like this I'll go with the intent of the rule. No need to complicate my life.

Surprised no one has thrown out the what if a player with one leg is dribbling the ball up...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

In absurd cases like this I'll go with the intent of the rule. No need to complicate my life.

Surprised no one has thrown out the what if a player with one leg is dribbling the ball up...

I consider his 2nd hop his 2nd leg crossing over.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by deecee

In absurd cases like this I'll go with the intent of the rule. No need to complicate my life.

Surprised no one has thrown out the what if a player with one leg is dribbling the ball up...

This situation might be absurd, but it is not complicated. What would make your life, and those of the people misfortunate enough to work with you, complicated is when you start doing what you think is the intent of the rule, rather than doing what is written in the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

This situation might be absurd, but it is not complicated. What would make your life, and those of the people misfortunate enough to work with you, complicated is when you start doing what you think is the intent of the rule, rather than doing what is written in the rule.

Do really believe that?

You and I both know that we call a lot of things by the intent of the rule rather than what is written in a lot of cases. 3 seconds is a common example. Multiple fouls are another.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... we call a lot of things by the intent of the rule rather than what is written in a lot of cases.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

[Mregor]

Time for a little "Tower Philosophy" here. No idea where it came from, just one of those things I've kept over the years.

"The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

[deecee]

Originally Posted by johnny d

This situation might be absurd, but it is not complicated. What would make your life, and those of the people misfortunate enough to work with you, complicated is when you start doing what you think is the intent of the rule, rather than doing what is written in the rule.

You officiate how you do and I will do how I do, and am taught by my assignors, from the HS to the D3 and JUCO level.

If you think that basketball is a 100% rule book officiated game then I can't imagine where you are working, because on the east and west coast, where I have officiated, it is not.