AP throw-in followed by non AP throw-in

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

…

I have often stated that learning the rules is the easy part, but for veteran officials, the stumbling blocks are the rule changes, and the longer one officiates (for example, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), the more changes (or reversals) accumulate, and the more difficult for one to remember the rule. There is a limited amount of space in veteran's dinosaur-like, walnut-sized brain.

Which why I always avoid conversations about what rule used to be or what a rule should be. I focus only on what it is so that I or the crew do not get confused with irrelevant information. And I most definitely don't want newer officials getting bombarded with discussions about old rules that do not apply.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Which why I always avoid conversations about what rule used to be or what a rule should be. I focus only on what it is so that I or the crew do not get confused with irrelevant information. And I most definitely don't want newer officials getting bombarded with discussions about old rules that do not apply.

I can certainly understand that well thought out point, especially the last sentence.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... he was brand new, so it was the only interpretation he knew of ...

I wish that I had a delete button for some of the stuff in my brain, but unfortunately I don't.

As a retired thirty-plus year middle school science teacher, I know that different people have different learning, and memorizing, styles.

For me, I need to understand something in its entirety to successfully memorize it. I'm also a visual and kinesthetic/tactile learner.

My girlfriend and I used to study together while in college. She would memorize information for a test, not really understanding what she was memorizing, and she would do so by verbally repeating (she was an auditory learner, drove me crazy) said information. How successful was she? Summa Cum Laude.

I would only (and still today) be able to memorize information if I understand it in its entirety. Why? How? Reason? As a visual/kinesthetic/tactile learner, I wouldn't verbalize information to be memorized, I would rewrite the information in the margins of my notebooks, or textbooks.

Same with basketball rules and rule changes. Why the rule? Why the change? History of the rule and any changes over the years? And every time I type and post something on the Forum it's a way that I can better learn a rule or an interpretation.

May not work for anybody else (certainly not for my girlfriend, who would become my ex-wife), but it works for me.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Which why I always avoid conversations about what rule used to be or what a rule should be. I focus only on what it is so that I or the crew do not get confused with irrelevant information. And I most definitely don't want newer officials getting bombarded with discussions about old rules that do not apply.

I agree with you to a point. Rules do not exist in a vacuum. It is important to understand the reason in which a Rule was written and understand the history of the Rule especially when it was originally written as A, then it was rewritten as B, and then it was rewritten as C (which is really A).

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

… it was originally written as A, then it was rewritten as B, and then it was rewritten as C (which is really A)

Perfect example, excessively swinging elbows with no contact (violation, to a technical foul, back to a violation).

[Altor]

Sometimes it's helpful when you have a coach or other official that says "that's not the rule. The rule is this..." Then you can say, that was the rule until about 5 years ago.

I feel the same way with NFHS/NCAA differences. Don't dwell on NCAA rules if you are in a NFHS rules discussion, but sometimes it's helpful to know the difference so you can tell somebody that they are thinking of the wrong rulebook.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Altor

Sometimes it's helpful when you have a coach or other official that says "that's not the rule. The rule is this..." Then you can say, that was the rule until about 5 years ago.



I feel the same way with NFHS/NCAA differences. Don't dwell on NCAA rules if you are in a NFHS rules discussion, but sometimes it's helpful to know the difference so you can tell somebody that they are thinking of the wrong rulebook.

This. All due respect to Raymond whose wisdom I have studied and applied many times, but in this case count me in the BillyMac/Altor camp. I believe in the power of history as a tool in my tool belt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

TI believe in the power of history as a tool in my tool belt.

It lets the coach be partially correct, just not current. I've found that is often accepted when used and effectively resolves the conflict more than not.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This. All due respect to Raymond whose wisdom I have studied and applied many times, but in this case count me in the BillyMac/Altor camp. I believe in the power of history as a tool in my tool belt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"That may have been the rule at one time, but it is not currently".

You can use that line whether you know the history of the rule or not. You can even use it if the coach is wrong about it being a rule at one time.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Perfect example, excessively swinging elbows with no contact (violation, to a technical foul, back to a violation).

Another example is: Entering the FT Lane during FTAs: When I started officiating Players had to wait until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard, it then changed to on the Release of the Ball by the FT Shooter, and than back to waiting until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. My above comment was made at 02:43amEST on my phone. I was awake because at my age men tend to wake up in the middle of the night to use the "head". I was "sleep typing" and was confused. This is why Mark, Jr., and Andy believe that I should not be allowed to have a smart phone. Therefore, do not pay attention to the man behind the screen nor to what I said in my above comment.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Another example is: Entering the FT Lane during FTAs: When I started officiating Players had to wait until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard, it then changed to on the Release of the Ball by the FT Shooter, and than back to waiting until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard.

MTD, Sr.

Huh?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Huh?

Bob:

I added a P.S. in bold red to my comment.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Entering the FT Lane during FTAs: When I started officiating Players had to wait until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard, it then changed to on the Release of the Ball by the FT Shooter, and than back to waiting until the Ball hit the Ring or Backboard.

For players in marked lane spaces, didn't the order of changes go from release, to hit, back to release?

I'm confused and my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Now where are my damn car keys?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For players in marked lane spaces, didn't the order of changes go from release, to hit, back to release?

I'm confused and my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Now where are my damn car keys?

When I played in the mid and late 1960s it was "wait until the Ball hit the Backboard or Ring" and it was like that when I started officiating in 1971, or that is what I seem to remember.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When I played in the mid and late 1960s it was "wait until the Ball hit the Backboard or Ring" and it was like that when I started officiating in 1971, or that is what I seem to remember.

Wait? So you're saying that for players in marked lane spaces, the order of changes went from hit (in ancient times), to release, back to hit, and then back to release?

Too bad your good friend Jimmy Naismith passed away or you could ask him.

How about a séance? Or a Ouiga Board?