|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 05:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark my words.
Quote:
 Better yet, you will hear about a coach that will make a big issue over a call that does not go their way. And I will bet that some assignor, somewhere will get a call or a letter about "how this official does not know the rule," and will reference the NF 2003-2004 Rulebook. If it happen to me over a rule that a coach did not understand what he wrote, it will happen on this situation. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) 
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 05:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now I understand your arguments. It's not in the rulebook so you can't explain it to coaches without a laptop. But printing it and putting it in your rulebook won't work either, because you don't want to pull the printed book out to explain it. And you don't want to call it right because coaches won't know the rules because it wasn't explained right at the rules meetings which already happened. But they don't know the rules as explained in the meetings anyway because they send somebody who isn't qualified to explain the rules to them to the rules meetings.
So I guess this means you will call it how coaches think it should be called rather than how the rules committee wants you to call it. Makes sense - I hope all refs do this for all commonly mis-understood rules. We can have a conference before each game to explain which rules are commonly misunderstood and will be enforced by coach understanding versus rulebook. I recommend that you start with the rebounded airball and enforce the self pass rule. I encourage suggestions for other alternative rules.
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 06:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is what you need to understand.
I am going to call my game regardless of what the rule says. My main concern is what the contact does, then my focus will be on the feet if I can see it. That was stated very clearly in both IHSA Rules Meetings I attended. So I am not going to nit pick over a toe on the line.
Secondly, whether I personally print this out or not, this is not something I am going to take on the court with me during pregame discussions, when coaches ask the "this happen to us last night" conversations, that we get drawn into from time to time. When game 17 in the season takes place and that coach claims all season long that the officials have been not calling what the rulebook says, I will not have a NF interpretation in my back pocket to give to him. And if I did, it would not be appropriate to have a lengthy discussion about it. Being a 3 sport official and a Referee (the one with the white hat) on my Varsity Football Crew, you would be surprised when we go through our drill with the coaches during the pregame. And you always have a coach that says, "I have not had that called all season," comments when they ask us about a situation that happen in their game. I do not have a rulebook in my back pocket to add to the discussion. And now with these pregame meetings where we have to involve the coaches in basketball, these similar comments are just par for the course. Now, if there intent was clear, WHY NOT PUT IN IN THE DAMN RULEBOOK?!!!! Why not realize this when you are creating these new rules? This is not just a simple mistake, this is a major mistake. That is all we are saying. We are not trying to debate what their intent was, but not understanding why they would make such a change and not use the one publication that is suppose to be clear, put in the the freakin rulebook. And I am by far not the only one that notices this mistake or confusion. It is nice that they have covered their behind like they did in football with PSK, but it seems to me when someone comes up with these brilliant ideas, they could look at all the possibilites that their rule could cause problems with other wording. Better yet, why not look at Article 3 right under your new rule? Not only did they they make the rule, but they also had to highlight "playing court" to try to make their point. But considering how they discuss these new rules, it does not surprise me that this would be missed, as usual.  Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 07:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with Rutledge about, "Why not put it in the rulebook?" How tough could it be to change "playing court" to "inbounds?" Sheez...
Jeff -- I'm tempted to send you a little plastic book I found which is actually for photographs, but the little sleeves are a perfect size for rule book pages. You could cut the interp and re-size it into this book with a few other important rules, and it would look very official. Coaches would be impressed with your professionalism. Still, Jeff, how many times do you anticipate having to deal with this issue? More than twice a season?
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 07:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Once you guys find a name for this dog with no legs, make sure you take him out for a drag.
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 07:58pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 [/B][/QUOTE]If you drag him behind your boat, you can call him Skip. Or throw him in a hole and call him Phil. Yuck...these are terrible...and the purpose of the Fe. putting out these clarifications is so that the confusion over rules will be cleared up - which it seems they have done...so call your game any way you want to - as long as it is by the correct rules so the crew who comes to that school after YOU won't have to listen to the "Last night" speech about you...
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 10:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
You could hang him on a wall...and call him Art. Or put him under a pile of leaves...and call him Russell. Here boy,...? [rustle, rustle,...]. Sorry
__________________
I'm getting what I want...by helping others get what they want.
|
|
Tue Oct 28, 2003, 11:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg
|
|
Wed Oct 29, 2003, 12:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clarification or CYA???
From the clarification:
There is an imbalance and an advantage given to the defensive player if he/she is permitted to use an area outside the playing court; especially when the offensive player is not given the same opportunity. I don't buy this. There is already rule 10-6-2... and it seems contradictory to this new clarification: A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path no attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact. Now, because the defender has cut off all opportunity by removing a 'reasonable chance ... to go through without contact' plus an inch - because he stepped on the line.... the burden is no longer on the dribbler, it is a block. From the clarification: “The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.” The intent of this sub-article was that the defensive player could be in the air and not touching the floor/ground/playing court. This has always been the rule... no wonder it was considered editorial. From the clarification: Understanding that the defensive player must have in-bounds status to maintain legal guarding position should help alleviate any confusion. This is new. Clarification maybe? editorial? I don;t think so. From the clarification: Officials aren't expected to do anything beyond what they were doing previously.Â* Referee the defense and call the play as they see it.Â*ItÂ’s still a judgment call. Nothing new? NFHS has created a whole new interpretation if not a new rule. I damn sure have to do something different than what I was doing before. Stepping on a line is not quite the same type of judgement as determining a block/charge. Stepping on the line is rather obvious and requires me to do something new concerning the defense. From the clarification: The above interpretation is supported in Situation 7 listed on the NFHS Web site. Yes it is supported in Situation 7. But it is not supported by your rulebook because the editorial changes to rule 4-23 did not include the clarification in 4-23-3b. that the defender must maintain position on the playing court. the interpretation and clarification is beyond the rule of 4-23-3b. If the intent was the the defender cannot leave the playing court it should have been stated in the rules. I think it is CoverYourAss(I mean mistakes). And not a very good job. I can fully agree with establishing a legal guarding position on the playing court and if it was stated in 4-23-3b. I could also agree with maintaining that position fully on the playing court... but it wasn't. Can't wait to make the call. I'm sure to hear some howling... let the monkeys loose! They should have asked for our help before they published!
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Wed Oct 29, 2003, 08:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony
I believe that the provision regarding space for a dribbler to get between defender and boundary is precisely why this rule makes sense - if that rule is enforced correctly. I think that coaches learned to teach players to go all the way to the sideline because refs generally go with the dribbler when the dribbler tries to get around a defender at the sideline, even when there is not sufficient space. If defenders stop short, offensive players hit them "off-center," rather than in the middle of the torso, causing a collision that many refs (in my experience) interpret to be a block. I am not saying this because I think calls went against me - I say this because I see it consistently called this way for all teams. If the block/charge call is consistently made correctly in these "no room to get by" cases, defenders won't need to go all the way on/over the sideline to cut off the dribbler. As for a CYA, call it what you want. They admit that they didn't make it clear enough in the rule book (they will fix the rules next year), but they are also stating that this clarification lays out the specific intent of their rule change this year. When I initially read the change, the clarified version is what I thought I read anyway, as did many others. So for some it is a clarification, for others a confirmation NF can't fix the book until next year. They say they will do this. For now, they can try ensure that people call it the way they intended it to be called this year by clarifiying the meaning of their rule change.
|
|
Wed Oct 29, 2003, 02:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Oct 29, 2003, 03:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Nope! Not me! Nada! Noooooo way!!! Please note, O Great Queen of the Oatmeal, that I left this one completely alone!
|
|
Wed Oct 29, 2003, 09:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The scientist writes in his notes, "Frog with 4 legs jumps 12 feet." He cuts off one of the frog's legs, and repeats the experiment. He yells, "Jump!" and the frog jumps 8 feet. The scientist writes in his notes, "Frog with 3 legs jumps 8 feet." He cuts off another of the frog's legs, and does the whole thing over again. "Jump!", and the frog jumps 4 feet. He writes, "Frog with 2 legs jumps 4 feet." Another leg and another shout. "Jump!" and the frog jumps 2 feet. He writes, "Frog with 1 leg jumps 2 feet". He removes the frog's last leg and yells again. "Jump!" He yells again. "Jump!" After waiting a few seconds, the scientist writes, "Frog with no legs is deaf." How'd I do?
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
