Penalty Administration????

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So something must not be clear if we are debating this here.

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.

While I concur that they are wrong (not that Rut will ever admit such, nor has he ever admitted that), I'm a little more understanding in cases involving unusual situations such as the one in the OP because I've encountered this struggle with many officials in my role of providing instruction to many officials in my referee associations in a couple of different sports.

Unusual situations challenge people mentally. It takes a strong and open mind to be able to process and accept that the normal manner of handling something just isn't appropriate and that the correct outcome may at first seem bizarre. Small-minded people get fixated on some detail (such as technical fouls are followed by a throw-in at the division line) and won't let go. This blocks them from moving forward to the correct solution. They struggle to get over some point which they KNOW and it prevents them from being open to the proper way of dealing with a more complex situation that requires a more elaborate resolution.

In this case, Rut and Johnny rigidly cling to the certitude that after one team commits a technical foul infraction, the other team is awarded two FTs and possession of the ball for a throw-in. They can't conceive that anything should alter this detail and that prevents them from accepting the administration put forth by several others which results from applying the more general NFHS principle of penalizing the fouls in the order of occurrence. Because this administration doesn't end with the offended team being awarded a throw-in, they are compelled to resist, to dig their heels in, shout, even kick and scream. They just can't make the mental leap to the next level.

I used to find it frustrating to encounter such people when instructing officials, but now I just find it sad and pity them. I have come to realize that I'm not going to change the minds of these people who are already set in their beliefs. I move on and turn my attention to educating others and providing them with the guidance needed to not follow down that same mistaken path.

The same concept will apply on this forum. I've resolved to not waste energy on those posters who cannot be convinced that they are incorrect. Instead I will provide posts for other forum members to read and they will hopefully see the error of the ways of those individuals and act differently.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.

OK tough guy. LOL!!!!

Peace

[JRutledge]

I love how when the conversation is about one topic, the NF is wrong, they have to change their wording, anyone who "disagrees with me" is wrong. But when it applies to something else, "The rules are clear" or "We do not need clarification because the interpretations apply."

Just funny how some people in this very thread act when it applies to other topics.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I love how when the conversation is about one topic, the NF is wrong, they have to change their wording, anyone who "disagrees with me" is wrong. But when it applies to something else, "The rules are clear" or "We do not need clarification because the interpretations apply."

Just funny how some people in this very thread act when it applies to other topics.

Peace

Assuming you're talking about the BC violation scenario, the difference is we can cite the rules and case plays that are in conflict with each other.

In this case, you've offering absolutely nothing in the rules or interpretations that support your contention. You just keep posting that we have ignored part of the penalty part of the equation, even though it's been shown that the ball is not always awarded in false foul situations.

But keep right on pushing the wrong ruling. We who have been here for years are used to you being wrong, and refusing to admit.

Done with this.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Assuming you're talking about the BC violation scenario, the difference is we can cite the rules and case plays that are in conflict with each other.

In this case, you've offering absolutely nothing in the rules or interpretations that support your contention. You just keep posting that we have ignored part of the penalty part of the equation, even though it's been shown that the ball is not always awarded in false foul situations.

But keep right on pushing the wrong ruling. We who have been here for years are used to you being wrong, and refusing to admit.

Done with this.

Tony:

Give it a rest. Rut, asked me for the Casebook Play and I provided it and he accepted it.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Tony:

Give it a rest. Rut, asked me for the Casebook Play and I provided it and he accepted it.

MTD, Sr.

Tony was looking for agreement and acceptance of the position. That is not going to happen unless someone can provide me the information from the NF that says that was their intent or not intent. Until then, I stand my my concern.

Peace