Mark,

To ask you "How is it on the other side of the edge?" would not be appropriate at this time because in this case it is obvious you have gone over the edge and entered a BLACK HOLE.

Not that your answer was wrong per rule but for the fact your answer was wrong per the spirit and intent of the learning experience that the Governing Body wished to convey to it's members.

You need to rethink your "misguided attempt to enforce a pseudo-sportsmanship rule" quote.

1. In a few weeks you will be officiating in the Ohio Special Olympics State Basketball Tournament that I will be assigning. They play strictly NFHS rules with no modifications. Yet, I know over the course of the games you will ignore a traveling violation because the player with the ball has two deformed arms with only 2 fingers on each hand and is barely able to hold the ball let alone bounce it. My friend, I call that enforcing your own psuedo-sportmanship rule.

2. We have officiated in many venues in which the organizing authority has modified the rules so all players can gain a positive experience from their participation. You accepted those modifications and we had a great time officiating. It boggles my mind you would then instruct another official that it is his "ethical and professional duty" to tell the authorities that their modification violates the rule. Hint: they already know it; that's why they call it a rules modification. Bottom line is the officials better follow the rec dept directive because they are the bosses.

Finally, to equate engineers purposely ignoring design codes and building legalities with rec directors modifying rules of a "game' is just plain rediculous. (I think enough is said there so I will not elaborate).

I wish to reiterate to all on the forum that Mark is able to accept officiating in a venue that has modified the rules. He accepted the modifications and did not run to the organizers with his rule books in hand to show them the errors of their ways.

If the original attempt at blocking for the dribbler was my game I would be thinking "This is a good time for a multiple foul." I've never called one but this would be a great time to assess fouls on both blockers.

I might even be tempted to suggest to the battered coach that it is time to set up his own fence. "Run your two blockers into this." Oooops multiple fouls again.

I'm betting that if you called a multiple foul just once the coach would go nuts. Then you T and eject him, if appropriate.

Other wise, I think about two multiple foul calls and you wouldn't see that tactic for the rest of that coach's career, let alone the season.

That's a facet of the rules I've never used. :)

And I think you would add, as would I, appropriately enforcing your own psuedo-sportsmanship.

I do think Mark likely mispoke when he said "ethically required to ignore his/her client's desires." I would assume that Mark would flatly say "I can't do that; hire some one else. This is a safety issue. If I do what you want, I'm violating safety rules and creating a hazard." Which is the opposite of this situation of taking a situation that is likely dangerous for the defender and rectifying it with a new rule. Not that I agree a new rule is the best solution. I would have done my best to rectify the situation myself within the latitude of the rules - basketball should not be a game of fear tactics.

And if I couldn't solve it, perhaps a new rule would do it for me.

That was funny, until I remembered that we were talking about third grade girls. That made my stop laughing.
I think that you could easily put an "over" in front of the "officious" in this case. The "spirit and intent of the rules" and "sportsmanship" just died in the face of literalism.

I was talking about MTD's post.

Teaching 3rd grade girls to run doubled-up moving screens is not something I promote.

Ignoring it in the name of "rules purity" or something is like leaving a starving man to starve because we're not legally obligated to feed him.

I knew that you were referring to MTD's post, and I agreed completely with your point. As well as the way that you were making your point. To let someone get away with something like that in 3rd. grade girl's ball is ludicrous. Unfortunately, MTD Sr. doesn't agree with us- which really doesn't surprise me. He is entitled to his opinion, though. I just can't see too many people agreeing with his opinion in this case, be they coaches or officials.

Right. But if the client petitions the city for a variance to the design codes, and the variance is granted, then the engineer can design such a building.

So, it would have been "wrong" for the officials to restrict the coach from using this play, it's allowed for the league to restrict it and for the officials to then enforce the league directive.

How can the screen play being discussed in this thread be ruled illegal if there is no illegal contact. How many times in a game have we seen A1 grab a loose ball in Team B's frontcourt and immediately start to move the ball quickly down the court via a dribble and A2 and A3, who are directly in front of A1, start running pell mell down the court too in hopes of either getting open, keeping defenders from getting to A1, or to draw defenders away from A1.

This play has to be looked at in its total. If there was no contact then there was no foul. If there was contact among players then the requirements for guarding and screening must be applied and a determination must be made as to whether A2 and A3, the screeners were guilty of contact with B2 and B3, or were B2 and B3 guilty of contact.

Daryl has already taken me to task over my previous post in this thread, and I guess I am being a stubborn old mule, but sticking to my guns over my position. I just find it hard to call the play intimidation by A2 and A3 just because they are two third grade girls who happen to be larger than the rest of their classmates. If A2 and A3 were the same size as the rest of the players on the court or even smaller would we consider their actions in this type of screening play intimidating, I think not. While the recreation department is trying to put its heart in the right place, it is misguided.

I have coached my ten year old son's 10U basketball team for the last two years (3 and 17 for those two seasons) and we faced some teams that had some large very good players. My players would look at these players and how they played and would get out of the way when they drove to the hoop. Should I have said to the Toledo P&R Dept. that these players are intimidating and when they drive to the hoop, that should be considered an unsportsmanlike technical foul. I think not.

The fact remains, the recreation department wants to penalize two players for doing something that is completely within the rules only because they are larger than the rest of the players on the court. I am sorry but I cannot advocate that type of rules making or interpretating.

As I prepare to sign off on this post, I have remembered that Daryl and I have at least two long automobile trips to basketball tournament this Spring, and I am sure that this play will be discussed in great detail..

Have a great weekend everybody, I know I am my family with have a busy one, with both our boys competing in the NW Ohio YMCA Swimming Championship in Lima, Ohio (both Saturday and Sunday) as well as playing basketball games in a YMCA Spring League in Toledo on Saturday. We will be putting lots of miles on both of our cars tomorrow.

But right now I have to leave to have a root canal done. Ta ta, don't forget your hat, The Traveling Gnome.

By calling it an "unsporting technical foul" under rule 10-3-7, just like the Recreation Department suggested.

And I answered in under 10,000 words,too. :D

There is not any problem in a basketball game that I can't solve using rule 3 nfhs and rule 2 sec. 4 ncaa.

I don't know of a rule specifically mentioning two players running shoulder to shoulder in front of the ball carrier, (Oops) dribbler, with kids trying to stay out of their way.

If the assignor/administrator for the league has an issue with the way I call the game, they will let me know. I will then continue refereeing for them, or not, depending on whether we can come to a mutual understanding of the way they want the game refereed and the way I am going to referee.

Mark
Situation A: Structural engineer follows laymen's modifications to accepted practice that results in a building that is substandard - bad idea. we agree.

Situation B: Structural engineer follows laymen's modifications to code that enforce a stricter (and therefore safer) set of rules - may cost more, but clearly not unsafe and clearly not the engineer's place to do anything other than to explain the potential cost ramifactions of the stricter standard. Not sure if you will agree to this, but it seems to make sense from my seat.

Situation C: Supervisor of a league mandates a rule interpretation in the interest of player safety and enjoyment of the game of basketball. Kids involved are getting their very first basketball experience, trying to decide if this is a game they want to play. Coach is clearly employing an intimidation tactic well outside the spirit of the rules of basketball, but not specifically illegal. His tactic does nothing positive for anybody involved, and jeopardizes player safety and the personal enjoyment of at least half of the participants. You clearly disagree that a modification of little kid rec rules in interest of fairness, safety, and enjoyment is a bad idea, when a ref with any sense would have implemented a personal interpreaion on the spot to eliminate this activity. Why you oppose this will remain a puzzle in my eyes.

Situation D: The next time the family goes to Nags Head or Ocean City I’ll be sure to hire a structural engineer to build the sandcastles. ;)

The point here is that it was THE LEAGUE that made the ruling. I agree with Mark that this probably is best not handled by the refs on the floor, in the first game of the year. But when the league says, "Okay, this isn't how we want basketball played in our league", then the refs are merely taking care of business when they issue an unsportsmanlike T, in this case. It's completely appropriate for the league to take this stand, in the same way that it's completely appropriate for the league to say, no zone defense, or no backcourt pressure. If a ref doesn't like that rule, he or she can work in a different league. The play is legal in high school, according to NFHS, but in the Kiddie Kourt league in Wherever, USA, the board has issued a new rule, and that's their perogative.

If what the client wants is in violation of design codes that have to do with the structural safety of the building the city can grant all of the variances it want to the code but no structural engineer will make the changes per the client's request.

Why do I think the recreation league is wrong? Go back to the original description of the play. Team A was using its two biggest girls. The recreation legaue's decision is political correctness run amok. And for those that do not know my political persuasion, I am a liberal Democrat who abors political correctness.

Once again I ask the question, if Team A had used its two smallest players to set the moving screen would we be having this discussion? I do not think so. The two players from Team A are being singled out soley because of their size.