NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Sunday March 19

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He actually did tap the rebound to put it back in....they didn't blow the whistle until that happened.

Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad.

Actually I know the rule quite well, but there is debate over the rules or what is expected. Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side. Because every game there is a discussion with partners about how we are going to handle the RA and how we give each other the information if the RA is involved. And there is a lot of conversation about when, how or if we do this. If you did this conversation would probably be more of something you would understand because this was a "debate" I love how you quote rules, but you never were in a single meeting where the rule was discussed. If you had, then you would realize that a lot of us are confused about what they want. The rule has been confusing and even tweaked because of that confusion.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side.
Peace

Really? Rather than admit you were wrong, I guess it is easier to attack. If that is your criteria, I guess it is clear you don't even work basketball because if you did you wouldn't screw up so much stuff.

Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? Rather than admin you were wrong, I guess it is easier to attack. If that is your criteria, I guess it is clear you don't even work basketball because if you did you wouldn't screw up so much stuff.

Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing.

Actually again, you do not work a single college game or get the videos from the NCAA. Enough said.

Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually again, you do not work a single college game or get the videos from the NCAA. Enough said.

Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source.

Peace

I may not currently, but I have in the past. And if you think you're something special for working a few low level NCAA games, keep dreaming.

You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the videos suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again).


As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I may not currently, but I have in the past. And if you think you're something special for working a few low level NCAA games, keep dreaming.

I do not find anything special with it, just know the conversations are different. I also work with guys that work D1 in our leagues and there is conversation about how they do things and what they are told.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the video's suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again).

No I just take in everything that is stated into consideration. There are often contradictions in what they show in video and what they say at the meeting or what they put in writing. I go to a staff meeting every year and have the a debate over what is wanted and need clarifications from things either written, like what we do with post play (whether the post player is behind or on the side with a forearm). The rule was clear, but it was not practical to how the game was played. And we would have the rules presentation bring more questions

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it.

Yes, two hands on the ball handler was a dribbler was a foul. Constant touching on the dribbler was a foul as well. These were so much rules, that no one called them that way or even taught to call fouls that way. Granted, many of these things were not tactics either, but since they were not fouls in the rulebook, they were never called. But again, you will tell us that it was and if that is your story, stick to that. You are literally the only person I know that feels that way!!!

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, two hands on the ball handler was a dribbler was a foul. Constant touching on the dribbler was a foul as well. These were so much rules, that no one called them that way or even taught to call fouls that way. Granted, many of these things were not tactics either, but since they were not fouls in the rulebook, they were never called. But again, you will tell us that it was and if that is your story, stick to that. You are literally the only person I know that feels that way!!!

Peace

You're forgetful too. A lot of people have agreed with me on the fact that these were always fouls but just not being called correctly. Again, that was the whole point of the rule change...not to make something a foul that wasn't but to get it through some people's thick heads that they were not enforcing existing rules correctly. The NFHS and NCAA even said as much. Every time you bring that up, you just prove the NCAA/NFHS right in that some people (you) were just not understanding it. And being wrong with others doesn't make you right.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're forgetful too. A lot of people have agreed with me on the fact that these were always fouls but just not being called correctly. Again, that was the whole point of the rule change...not to make something a foul that wasn't but to get it through some people's thick heads that they were not enforcing existing rules correctly. The NFHS and NCAA even said as much. Every time you bring that up, you just prove the NCAA/NFHS right in that some people (you) were just not understanding it. And being wrong with others doesn't make you right.

I do not care what other people agree with you about. I was not asking for your approval or their approval to have an opinion. If they agree with you, nice. But I can tell you that there were not people calling it that way. I have been doing this for over 20 years and been to many camps outside of my state and there was no such suggestion by any official that is outside of my area or works D1 basketball. Heck there were all kinds of complaining about how things were called if you simply called a hand-checking foul years ago. I actually went to John Adam's camp before he became the NCAA Supervisor and just simple calls that now fall under 10-1-4 were often seen very differently. I even worked a game at John Adam's camp where the clinician told us to call more hand-checking calls in a half me and my partners were working called more and John who was not watching our game started watching. He was surprised there were more fouls and wondered why until his clinician told him, "I told them to call more of those fouls." John said, "Oh, OK" and we did not have it mentioned. But it was something we had to be asked to do because of the specifics of the game, not because it was a specific rule.

Heck the way post play was officiated was also something not called the way it is now. If you did, you were calling "game interrupters." But again back to what I said, you are not seeing the videos. Every NCAA video spends the first couple of minutes talking about 10-1-4. That was not the case before not matter what you say.

I am also not trying to be "right." I do not care about who is right or wrong. I do not have these conversations to prove anything, but other than to have a discussion. Even the way I create the videos are to spark discussions that are often not about the rules, but about the philosophy of how you call the game. Often what is expected and what is called are not the same thing. But that is why "rulebook officials" like you are not people I like working with. You want to prove you know the rule, but do not know how the rules are to be applied or expected to be applied. And the last time I checked, I did not see you on any of these games working either.

Peace