Muted on the Facebook Group
 

How does anyone think that an acceptable way to have a discussion on what a rule means is to delete opposing views and mute anyone who disagrees?

What am I missing?

Welcome to Social Media my man. People often do not want to hear from folks that disagree with them and use their power or blocking or deleting comments of those they disagree with. Whether we think it is acceptable or not really does not matter. When people have pages, they can do all kinds of things to block those that have an opposing view. It is kind of cowardice for sure, but still their right on those forums.

Peace

I know. You and I have certainly had our disagreements and i've deserved to have some things deleted here, but this is just plain silly. It was a simple discussion of what a rule meant. He said I was wrong and promptly deleted everything I said so no one else would see it and have a chance to agree with it.

If one of them were the national rules editor, I might accept it. But, they're not even their state rules interpreter. Even if they were, that doesn't make their interpretation right for any other state.

Pretending to run a site for officials is only credible if you allow opposing views to be expressed.

And my point....the ball, on a throwin, doesn't become live just because a player picks up the ball. If they're not immediately in a place to execute the throwin, I'm waiting to start my count and determine the ball live until they are (assuming they're not delaying). I'm not starting my count when they pick up the ball at the FT line, leaving them only 2-3 seconds to actually make a throwin once they get OOB.

Muted on the Facebook Group
 

Hey, your group owner didn't throw you out of all his groups and block you so you don't even see them. Then unfriend you and block you on FB and block you on Twitter for good measure.

Wonder if we're talking about the same person?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I've quit more FB groups than I currently monitor. Most cater to uninformed one- or two-word responses to a clip or a question and rulings based on consensus rather than actual rules-based responses.
Don't sweat it. They need you more than you need them. Since they don't sense that, forget 'em.
Just my take . . .

Not yet. I don't mind disagreement but blocking someone over a different rule interpretation is just ridiculous.

Heck, you and I have had disagreements. And you even unfriended me. But, that didn't really bug me. We had a natural difference of opinion over something a lot more appropriate to just not talk about any more.

Is this the "Basketball Officials" group run by a former regular member of this site?

Peace

Hmmmm. Took his ball to a playground he could control, right or wrong.

"Basketball Officials" or "Basketball Referees"?

I'll go out on a limb and say Basketball Referees.

That was my assumption but wanted to clarify.

Does it really matter? There are 100 groups with the same name, but only one that has the person that is here that people do not want to mention his name as an administrator. He is the same person that tried to tell everyone what they should feel about rulings or procedures because of his experience and background. And that same person was called out here several times by folks and why he is on that site trying to bully people.

Peace

Once you're on the cover of Referee Magazine, you're kind of a big deal :D

I am lost because I don't knwo to whom you are referring ot to what group you are referring.

I am glad that I don't use Face Crook (well -- I had to set up an account for one specific purpose that I use once a year. Never otherwise go on it. tried my damnedest to enter as little as possible and lock down all settings.)

This doesn't surprise me :D