Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

Wouldn't it just be easier if Billy started his own forum?

It would be called, "Twist himself into a pretzel Official's Forum." That is all Billy is doing it arguing with himself about something that no one else is struggling with.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It would be called, "Twist himself into a pretzel Official's Forum." That is all Billy is doing it arguing with himself about something that no one else is struggling with.

Peace

It's a repetitive theme on EVERY post.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's a repetitive theme on EVERY post.

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?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 ).

Apologies for the unnecessary negativity.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

... seems oftentimes you are arguing semantics or issues that either never come up or don't really have any bearing on officiating a game.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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

[Kelvin green]

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..

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

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

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)?

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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... your belt wearing self ...

If I move to Illinois, or Indiana, or practically anywhere else, I will certainly be sure to leave my black belt behind in this little corner of Connecticut, because one of the most important things that I've learned on the Forum is, "When Rome, do as the Romans do".

Note: We had a guy work a state final this past season who wore a black belt in the final. He was the only official who wore a black belt in a final game. I also observed a great rookie official (who just passed the test) wearing a black belt and I advised him to get rid of the belt. Wearing a black belt is so mid-twentieth century, as am I.