Oldest Trick In The Book ...
 

Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it citation or a reference, and make it true.

Just like saying over and over again that the new NFHS backcourt exception made it the same as the NCAA backcourt exception. How did that work out for you?

You are probably right, but prove it. Even it's the old you can't prove a negative trick. Use your intellect. Use your powers of rational reasoning, and persuasion. Get your head in the rulebook. Find some relevant language.

Valid points. And I had my input somewhere out there.

but out of 45 responses you account for 13 right now, and You didn't respond at all through page 1, so in the final 30, 13 are yours. That's 1/3.

In the screen post you are almost at 1/2 of the responses.

I guess it just seems a lot to me and no one else really minds. I'll stop :D.

"I Won't Back Down" (Tom Petty, 1989) …
 

Yeah, the theme that I have an opinion on something, I'm challenged, and I don't back down until proved right, or wrong, and if wrong, I admit that I'm wrong, and that I learned something along the way.

It is my hope that at the end of this thread I will admit that I'm wrong about this topic and I will thank bob jenkins and JRutledge for helping me to learn something that I didn't know before, making me a better official. Isn't that what this Forum is all about.

I didn't back down from the NFHS backcourt exception discussion, and how did that work out for everybody?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it seems oftentimes you are arguing semantics or issues that either never come up or don't really have any bearing on officiating a game.

But if clarity brings you peace then so be it, an you have that right no matter how grumpy I (or anyone else) may be for no other reason that the thread is longer that I think it should be (that's really just in my head :D).

Apologies for the unnecessary negativity.

Except Old School ...
 

Please don't ignore me, and please don't stop criticizing me. Let the moderators do their job. Everyone has something to contribute to the Forum. I'm just a little more stubborn, and obstinate, than most, and I like get closure more than most.

Warning: I retire from my day job on Friday and will have more time to post. Now won't that be a lot of fun? I better buy a backup keyboard in case I wear out the old one.

On Our Toes ... ...
 

True, but see my post to ilyazhito. It's still important to get stuff right, even the little stuff. Debates like this keep us on our toes.

Also, I just gave my opinion on this video play. I believe that it was bob jenkins who questioned my semantics regarding the foul that had the characteristics of being both intentionally and flagrantly committed.

Did I get the call right? Did I get the penalty right? Even if true, it's was still important to bob jenkins, and to JRutledge, and to me, that we correctly identify the type of foul.

If we blame anyone for the length of this thread let's blame jeremy341a, he posted the video. Just kidding. It's a great video. And I agree with bob jenkins that this would be more interesting if the play were a double foul, or a false double foul.

Here is the thing Billy, I said from the beginning what I felt was an opinion based on what it looked like. I also said that the NF needed to clarify that position to make it clear. I never felt that I was totally right or that there was no other explanation for their ruling. But let us be honest, the NF created an exception to something that was not an exception ot the examples they gave. The two plays I showed in the actual NF PowerPoint and in the S&I Book are not a "first touch, last touch" situation. They are a defender hits the ball in the backcourt and then an offensive player touches the ball in the backcourt (in the air apparently). That is why this was a debate in the first place. And it was such a debate that at a meeting I went to there were people thinking that the NCAA Rule was the only logical conclusion and others saying it was not the rule. It was poorly written.

I was also critical of the way the rule was changed without some situations that involved the rule they wrote the exceptions for. Obviously, there was someone on the committee like yourself that was worried about a situation that never happens as you do here and that is why they had to create a silly video that I have yet to see on video anywhere in a real game. At least I had some evidence for my position on the matter. You in this situation are going on and on about something that really no one but you (here) at least seems to be questioning.

Even if we say there is such a thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul, a flagrant foul and an intentional foul have the same exact penalty as it relates to how we put the ball back in play and how many FTs we shoot. We are just ejecting a player on a flagrant foul in high school and doing everything else the same as a regular intentional foul. So I guess if it means that much to you, then go on and on as if no one is here. But there are people here and this is kind of why you get the response by multiple people you do when you literally have had like 4 different posts without much quoting of others with rather long posts. I am not critical of the long posts, but the fact you keep posting pictures, making jokes all over something that no one is even confused by or taking your position.

You go on believing what you want to and the rest of us will do what we understand the rule to be. I do not have to work with you and do not have to prove anything. I literally have had this conversation with others and usually, they are like, "Oh, that makes sense." You are a different animal for some reason. I am good with my position and do not need to contact anyone to even ask them such a silly distinction as I did when we had the debate about the backcourt rule.

Peace

I will say it this way. How many playoff games in your state have you worked? How many State Finals or title games have you worked again?

Maybe someone needs to teach you the "Three-legged stool" of officiating. Rules knowledge is only one part of that stool. BTW, heard that when I started and it came from a man named Tom Quinn who was a Big Ten Football Crew Chief for years and a technical advisor for years after retirement.

Peace

I’ll jump in
 

Billy

The simplest way to look at why there is no intentional flagrant foul is that the definitions don’t have it....

While you are right that the definition of flagrant includes the word intentional look at rule 4 but it is clarifying statement not a definition of another foul..

Each part of section 19 on fouls defines what a foul is... common, personal, flagrant, intentional, technical, multiple, double... etc. no definition for intentional flagrant. ....

For example I’d say a strike, knee, or kick, is an intentional act.... but by definition it’s flagrant.... it also telling you that you could have an unintentional act that is flagrant... by using those phrases we could have an unintentional flagrant foul as well? No it’s flagrant..... if it’s not flagrant then it’s a personal or technical foul of some other nature...

There are 14 fouls defined in the book. By definition a flagrant is a personal or technical foul ... I think everything else is describing what it is..

Additional Descriptors ...
 

Thanks Kevin, you've pushed me close to the edge but not quite over the cliff.

I understand that we can't "willy-nilly" combine these various listed fouls together. Otherwise we could have a personal technical foul.

But we can have a personal flagrant foul, by combining personal and flagrant.

Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptor to the words intentional foul (other than personal or technical)? When we as officials on the floor, decide to upgrade a pushing personal foul to a pushing intentional personal foul that the pushing descriptor goes away, it just becomes a intentional personal foul, not a pushing intentional personal foul?

Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptor to the words flagrant foul (other than personal or technical)? When we as officials on the floor, decide to upgrade an excessive contact intentional personal foul to a excessive contact intentional flagrant personal foul that the excessive contact intentional descriptor goes away, it just becomes a flagrant personal foul, not an excessive contact intentional flagrant personal foul?

Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptors to the words flagrant foul, nor to the words intentional foul (other than personal or technical)?

Are you saying that if the definition doesn't include any sub-varieties of fouls that we should stay away from adding any descriptors?

Intentional fouls only list two sub-varieties, personal, or technical. Flagrant fouls only list two sub-varieties, personal, or technical. Are you saying that the NFHS wants us to only stick to those two sub-varieties for either type?

I feel myself going over the cliff.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this Kelvin green.

Answer my questions in this post, and I'm ready to admit that I was wrong.

What's Wrong With Being A Journeyman Official ...
 

A few (including a single conference final) and none.

I have never questioned your rule knowledge or your ability to officiate the game, only your ability to explain yourself in written form which isn't needed on the basketball court.

Yes, I am a journeyman official, a proud journeyman official, a journeyman official much valued by my assigner, but I know the rules, I know the mechanics, I know how to teach these aspects of the game, I know how to utilize rational, reasonable thinking, and I know how to express myself in written form, having had several articles published in national magazines.

I never realized that one had to have state finals in multiple sports under one's belt to post opinions and try to back them up on the Forum (although having have state finals in multiple sports under one's belt does give one a certain gravitas). I never realized that journeyman officials weren't allowed to post opinions and try to back them up the Forum.

Am I the only Forum member who hasn't worked at least one state final? Am I out of my league? Should I resign from the Forum? Should I give up officiating because I'm "only" a journeyman official? Who's going to officiate those low level varsity games and fill in for those high level varsity games when there's an availability problem for the assigner? Maybe those low level varsity games shouldn't even be played since there aren't enough state final guys to work them? Who really cares about a 2-17 team playing a 4-15 team in a girls varsity game?

No. It means "it may or may not be an intentional act."

It would be easier on us. ;)

Yes. All fouls are either personal or technical. They also can have additional descriptors -- some of which apply to both; some of which by definition apply only to one; some of which are listed as applying to one.

So, we can have IP or IT. We can have FP or FT. We can have PC_, but not PCT. By definition, it's "called" a Common Personal Foul, but no ever uses the "common" part (except on a test, etc.); there's no "definition" of "common Technical" -- but that's what most of them are (in English usage).

I got tired of reading all this nonsense from Billy so I skipped over the last 17 or 18 posts.

There is a penalty administration for a flagrant foul and there's a penalty administration for an intentional foul. So which one are you choosing if you're going to make up some foul called intentional flagrant foul.

And quit saying the penalties are the same EXCEPT for an ejection. That's a mighty big exception. and is why you confuse yourself and start these nonsense debates.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

For the record, I did not say that because you said anything about my ability. But you act like someone was damaged by the discussion because they had a take on the rule that was yet to be explained. So what happened? Nothing. We had a discussion about a rule that was not explained and it was later explained. And your belt wearing self still needs to realize that nothing you do has changed either. IJS.

Peace