Average Numeber of Called Fouls

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Because too many people were being obstinate about it....wanting to do it their own way and improperly using the incorrect excuse of advantage/disadvantage to not call it (consider me guilty too because I was not interested in being different, but that doesn't mean I agreed with it). They tried it with POE's for a while with little effect. Realizing that some people would continue to refuse to call it as defined and requested without it being spelled out for them in most simple terms, they spelled it out so that even the most stubborn could no longer say it wasn't a foul.

Well if that was the standard, they did not seem to tell anybody that was the standard. Again, 4-27 says very clearly what is not a foul and if the contact stated does not affect normal offensive or defensive movement, then the actual rules says that is not a foul. So again if it was clear as you say, then it would have been used to remind people that these actions were "automatic" fouls. But the problem is that was never the case in my career. Of course there were POEs about things that they wanted us to call, but not about this specific issue or stating specifics that make these actions a foul.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well if that was the standard, they did not seem to tell anybody that was the standard. Again, 4-27 says very clearly what is not a foul and if the contact stated does not affect normal offensive or defensive movement, then the actual rules says that is not a foul. So again if it was clear as you say, then it would have been used to remind people that these actions were "automatic" fouls. But the problem is that was never the case in my career. Of course there were POEs about things that they wanted us to call, but not about this specific issue or stating specifics that make these actions a foul.

Peace

The fact that you keep posting this confirms why they had to reword them as automatic. You were not getting it even though it was being said...and you're still not getting it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fact that you keep posting this confirms why they had to reword them as automatic. You were not getting it even though it was being said...and you're still not getting it.

I just do not agree with you. I have been around a lot of officials that started way before me and they did not advocate what you are advocating.

I get that you feel the rules are what you say they were, but it does not appear a lot of people agreed. So if they did not agree or understand that interpretation as you stated, then that is a problem. That is why IMO they not only had an editorial change to the overall rule in 10-6, but they added specifics to what is to be a foul that was never there previously.

And I really do not understand why you are even arguing this point. We are in a different time now.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just do not agree with you. I have been around a lot of officials that started way before me and they did not advocate what you are advocating.

I get that you feel the rules are what you say they were, but it does not appear a lot of people agreed. So if they did not agree or understand that interpretation as you stated, then that is a problem. That is why IMO they not only had an editorial change to the overall rule in 10-6, but they added specifics to what is to be a foul that was never there previously.

And I really do not understand why you are even arguing this point. We are in a different time now.

Peace

Just about every level has said they wanted to get officials to return to calling it the way it was (based on the rules that have been there all along) but POEs were not getting people to call it accordingly...so they took another angle to say the same thing. How hard is that to understand?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just about every level has said they wanted to get officials to return to calling it the way it was (based on the rules that have been there all along) but POEs were not getting people to call it accordingly...so they took another angle to say the same thing. How hard is that to understand?

I never heard any league say, "Return to what we used to do." These rules were put in place came actually from a directive from the NBA and the NCAA took on the "automatics" as a way to describe fouls. If they wanted people to just call the game the way the game was, then they would not have to change or add any rules right? And the rules that they have asked to be called are also only dealing with the ball handler, not any other position or situation on the floor. Because the NBA allowed handchecking back in the 80s and changed the rules to eliminate that action. Heck there was not even a signal for handchecking until the early 2000s I believe (at least since I have been officiating for sure). So I guess I am missing this directive to go back to what we used to never do.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I never heard any league say, "Return to what we used to do." These rules were put in place came actually from a directive from the NBA and the NCAA took on the "automatics" as a way to describe fouls. If they wanted people to just call the game the way the game was, then they would not have to change or add any rules right? And the rules that they have asked to be called are also only dealing with the ball handler, not any other position or situation on the floor. Because the NBA allowed handchecking back in the 80s and changed the rules to eliminate that action. Heck there was not even a signal for handchecking until the early 2000s I believe (at least since I have been officiating for sure). So I guess I am missing this directive to go back to what we used to never do.

Peace

You and officials with the same mindset are the very reason they had to go to absolutes after the POEs didn't work....you refuse to accept that it was always a foul. Every time you post this argument you just confirm you were part of the problem.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You and officials with the same mindset are the very reason they had to go to absolutes after the POEs didn't work....you refuse to accept that it was always a foul. Every time you post this argument you just confirm you were part of the problem.

So I guess most if not all had the same mindset. But of course we know that you knew better than everyone else, so it was all "our" fault that the things you believe were not called properly. So when I went to camps in Texas and Kentucky and Indiana it was me that was telling everyone at the camp what should or should not be called?

Again, maybe you were on an island of that thinking, because I do not see anyone else saying that these were fouls or clearly listed on the book, even with folks that worked much longer than me that commented in this thread. Because we know that you were the absolute authority on this and many issues of what was in the actual rules or the interpretations of those rules as well. Not that the NF ever put out videos (which my state actually started the consortium and used by the NF for training in the early 2000s) and I cannot recall in any of those videos suggesting that we call fouls that when 10-6-12 did not exist. Yes, my mindset was such the problem that they never suggested to do otherwise.


Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fact that you keep posting this confirms why they had to reword them as automatic. You were not getting it even though it was being said...and you're still not getting it.

Lol!!!