"Hey Ref, that's five seconds!"

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, you make a simple conversation into a bigger deal.



Peace

Don’t you think that’s a little like the pot calling the kettle black?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Also, what I have found is that college guys who kick HS rules also kick college rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Don’t you think that’s a little like the pot calling the kettle black?

No. I have many conversations here in the context of the conversation. Billy often suggests something totally that was no where in the conversation. No one said a single thing about having to master all rules in this conversation. They simply said to have knowledge of other levels is a good thing and how to have that working knowledge. It is actually a common thing we do here when talking about my posted videos. I even ask questions in the videos about the level that people work and how the rule applies. I do not assume those that are talking about a play in a college game is incapable of understanding a little difference when pointed out to them in if it is not an exact high school example. Since I post most of the videos and I see people discuss differences all the time, it is clear that most people have a working knowledge of rules at other levels they do not currently work.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Also, what I have found is that college guys who kick HS rules also kick college rules.

Exactly!!!! I know college guys that do not know basic rules in college and clearly try to enforce college philosophies in high school games.

Peace

[Kansas Ref]

I concur and have observed the same "kicking of rules" & "not knowing rules"; this past season one of my partners called "basket interference" after B5 in an attempt to block a shot inadvertently hit the backboard and not even causing a slight wobble--try for goal (layup) was missed. I admonished said partner at halftime. He really thought it was a goal-tending/BI to slap the bb
And another one: some of my partners will call "carrying the ball" when the A1 just inadvertently high dribbled (and ball never came to rest on palm) just an odd looking single episode of a high dribble. All fans want this to be a violation---and moan---but alas, legal dribble. I told them halftime that it's not carrying the ball and it will make us look 'bad' as a crew if I'm not calling it a violation but you are calling one. One partner agreed after I showed him the NF rule book reference that I keep in changing bag, the other partner (a 20 year vet according to him) said and I quote "if I see him dribble like that again, I''ll call it the same way".
I think we did our best in that particular game at confusing the players, coaches, and fans.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Plus the shot clock kinda makes closely guarded irrelevant.

I disagree with this. IMHO, which the rules committee doesn't share, the closely guarded -- when dribbling -- rule prevents one player from dribbling the ball for 25 seconds and trying every move in his arsenal in order to get a shot. I think that the closely guarded rule promotes team play, rather than allowing a possession to devolve into an extended one-on-one contest.

I much prefer the NFHS rule to the NCAA/NBA rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I disagree with this. IMHO, which the rules committee doesn't share, the closely guarded -- when dribbling -- rule prevents one player from dribbling the ball for 25 seconds and trying every move in his arsenal in order to get a shot. I think that the closely guarded rule promotes team play, rather than allowing a possession to devolve into an extended one-on-one contest.

I much prefer the NFHS rule to the NCAA/NBA rule.

Actually, that was the logic of the committee. They felt there was no need for the closely guarded during a dribble because of shortening the shot clock. And I agree with them as a player dribbling around does not create better offense. During a high school game that would just be keep away and not players able to stop them. Not so much the case at the college level.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I disagree with this. IMHO, which the rules committee doesn't share, the closely guarded -- when dribbling -- rule prevents one player from dribbling the ball for 25 seconds and trying every move in his arsenal in order to get a shot. I think that the closely guarded rule promotes team play, rather than allowing a possession to devolve into an extended one-on-one contest.

I much prefer the NFHS rule to the NCAA/NBA rule.

LOVE that we don't have a "closely guarded while dribbling" rule in college. Shot clock means they will be shooting ball in under 30 seconds. And team cohesion is so much greater at the college level than at the HS level. Players dribble the ball for a reason at the college level.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Raymond

LOVE that we don't have a "closely guarded while dribbling" rule in college. Shot clock means they will be shooting ball in under 30 seconds. And team cohesion is so much greater at the college level than at the HS level. Players dribble the ball for a reason at the college level.

Solution: Adopt a 30 second shot clock nationally at the high school level. This will finish the closely guarded on a dribble nonsense, once and for all.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Solution: Adopt a 30 second shot clock nationally at the high school level. This will finish the closely guarded on a dribble nonsense, once and for all.

Make enough trips to high schools that can't run a scoreboard or keep a book properly and you'll think twice about that thought.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[sdoebler]

The high school game is adopting a shot clock in more and more states. I think it will be the norm in the future. How long that takes, who knows 10? 20 years?

The push-back that I hear the most is the cost to outfit all of the schools with a shot clock.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No. I have many conversations here in the context of the conversation. Billy often suggests something totally that was no where in the conversation. No one said a single thing about having to master all rules in this conversation.

I said that "single thing", "master". Am I a "no one"? The ones who have to master multiple rule sets are those that officiate multiple rule sets, and I'm very much impressed that many Forum members have the ability to do such.

Why should I not be allowed to use the word master before anybody else uses it in reference to those "two rule sets guys"?

I should be able to use any word that I want to use to describe such officials, especially when I'm praising them.

Now if I'm berating Forum members, then I should be censored regarding the types of words that I use, and if I use the wrong word, I should be suspended, or worse.

But when was the last time you saw a post by my me that berated anybody? I'll give you a hint, it was about a Forum member with the initials O and S. I admit it, I lost my patience, and I lost my cool. It was very unlike me, very un-Christian of me. I can't state his Forum name because it's been mentioned twice in the past month, and I don't want to find out what happens if his name is mentioned a third time. That didn't work out very well the movie Beetlejuice.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I said that "single thing", "master". Am I a "no one"? The ones who have to master multiple rule sets are those that officiate multiple rule sets, and I'm very much impressed that many Forum members have the ability to do such.

Why should I not be allowed to use the word master before anybody else uses it in reference to those "two rule sets guys"?

I should be able to use any word that I want to use to describe such officials, especially when I'm praising them.

Now if I'm berating Forum members, then I should be censored regarding the types of words that I use, and if I use the wrong word, I should be suspended, or worse.

But when was the last time you saw a post by my me that berated anybody? I'll give you a hint, it was about a Forum member with the initials O and S. I admit it, I lost my patience, and I lost my cool. It was very unlike me, very un-Christian of me. I can't state his Forum name because it's been mentioned twice in the past month, and I don't want to find out what happens if his name is mentioned a third time. That didn't work out very well the movie Beetlejuice.

You can use whatever word you want to use, but that was not the point of what I said. And again the issue I had was not that you used the word, it was that you attributed that to those that you were discussing this with, in other words misrepresenting the conversation or point of view. Just like the "straw man" point of view that anyone accused you of berating anyone. I just took exception in the conversation (not upset in any way) to the fact you suggested that I or anyone said that you must master rules for levels you do not work. Heck, I have not mastered rules at both levels. Many times there are things that never happen and never are a concern. I just do not make big mistakes because I have seen a lot in my 20 years of officiating to know the variations in the rules and study why there are differences. The rules change so much over the years it takes time to realize the impact of certain situations like when the NCAA went to the Class A and B technical foul classifications.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

The high school game is adopting a shot clock in more and more states. I think it will be the norm in the future. How long that takes, who knows 10? 20 years?

The push-back that I hear the most is the cost to outfit all of the schools with a shot clock.

That is a big reason. I work in a state where they do not even have a play clock in high school football games. A shot clock is a huge cost and I was told that it might be around $4000-5000 to add to any school. I know many schools that might not be able to pay that let alone pay more to officials. Schools in my state are crying poor about a lot of things that have nothing to do with sports. So I can only imagine this is a hard sell across the country. But the cost is not my major concern with this rule, the application is my concern.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Heck, I have not mastered rules at both levels.

I certainly don't know you personally, but from your posts, I believe that you're being humble. You seem to have a great knowledge of the rules, especially in regard to incidental contact/illegal contact/advantage/disadvantage, on both the "book" level, and (from your comments with your many helpful videos) on the practical side of things. You've been a clinician in your area (a job that only our top officials hold here in Connecticut), you've worked state finals in more than one sport, you've successfully moved from womens to mens college basketball (I believe Division I), and (I'm not sure of this) made a geographic move and have maintained a challenging (as from your posts) schedule, not something one does lightly without a great resume.

Maybe I should have used the word "proficient" instead of mastered. Mastered implies reaching the pinnacle of success, which can breed laziness, and apathy, in some officials. That's certainly not me, I'm always striving to improve (as a journeyman official, there's always room for improvement), and I don't believe there's a single ounce of laziness, or apathy in your officiating character.