moving screen

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

Mark -- You're arguing against yourself here. Safety IS the first issue for refs, and they should want variances to the rules that promote safety just as your engineer will only respect variances that recognize aand work within safety standards. When the league makes a "variance" that is clearly against safety, it makes sense for refs to question it, or even ignore it. But when the "variance" is TOWARD a better game, a safer game, a more positive basketball experience for some very little people, why would that be a problem?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Mark -- You're arguing against yourself here. Safety IS the first issue for refs, and they should want variances to the rules that promote safety just as your engineer will only respect variances that recognize aand work within safety standards. When the league makes a "variance" that is clearly against safety, it makes sense for refs to question it, or even ignore it. But when the "variance" is TOWARD a better game, a safer game, a more positive basketball experience for some very little people, why would that be a problem?

Julie:

I made another post just before you made this one and I think it will answer your question.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Agreed. And if the league had suggested a change to the effect that "all contact is to be ruled incidental" then your analogy would make sense.

They didn't, and it doesn't.




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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

Political correctness to insist that 3rd graders play basketball instead of rugby? I am a liberal Democrat, too, and can't see that that has anything to do with it. What the girls were learning in that situation was not basketball. That play has its place where the opponent players know how to deal with it. But these girls most emphatically do not. I can't see that this is illegal discrimination of any sort whatsoever. It is discrimination that I want my daughter to practice dribbling, passing, setting legal screens, rebounding, shooting and other basketball fundamentals. Taking a charge for the team comes in much later when my daughter has enough bulk to survive, and enough quick thinking to counteract.
Besides, the league certainly has the right to make that rule if they want. If they had worded it differently, such as "no zone offense" or "every player must be given five shooting opportunities during each game" or something that would break up the flying wedge, would that be less offensive to you?

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

These girls were singled out by their own coach for this particular play. That's not the league's fault. The discrimination happened before the league got involved. If the parents feel their girls are being picked on, it's the coach they should be talking to.

Do the parents sign up their big girls for them to learn to intimidate others? Why wouldn't they want their daughters to learn to shoot, dribble and pass? Later, when the offense is more canny and skilled, this play will be useless and their time in the game will have been completely wasted. Why would anyone want to put up with this?

[Edited by rainmaker on Mar 12th, 2004 at 01:06 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

Mark
Let's be clear about who singled out the big players. It was the coach! He picked his most intimidating players and chose to use them in a decidely non-basketball intimidating manner.

The league is not harming these two players. It is actually doing these two big girls a favor because they are not being used in an appropriate manner, especially at an instructional level. They are learning a tactic that is completely inappropriate for high level basketball, because at that level, it will result in players drawing fouls. By making the coach use his players in a manner appropriate to the game of basketball, it is forcing the coach to at least make an attempt to teach these young players something of value.

Of course, it won't fix most of the other things that I think coaches do with big players at young ages, but it will really help these two kids, their teammates, and the rest of the players in the league. Everybody wins in this situation in my book.

[Hawks Coach]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CYO Butch

The league in question (Montgomery County, MD, Department of Recreation) has a set of very explict guidelines for coach and parental behavior, playing time, etc.

My old league! This is where I got my start, CYOB. Where do you play, and who runs your league? Who made this call (if you don't mind saying)? I know a lot of the folks at Rec and they are good people. We worked on some coach and league issues back a few years.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

Besides, the league certainly has the right to make that rule if they want.

[/B][/QUOTE]Juulie, Mark is assidiously trying to ignore this fact, but the league doesn't have to make up a new rule. It's already covered under the existing rules. The league is saying that this type of play is unsporting, and they want their officials to call it as unsporting. The officials can do that now under the existing rules- i.e. rule 10-3-7. In other words, it is covered under our existing "building code".

Mark, forget about "building codes". I would be pleased to listen to any argument that you would like to make that states exactly why a "T" can't be called under R10-3-7.Please attach rules references.

[Back In The Saddle]

MTD,

If I were interested enough I could dig out my old college texts and identify the exact name of the logical falicy you have perpetrated in this thread.

To compare the legal and ethical obligations of a licensed professional engineer that are mandated, often by law, to prevent the loss of potentially billions of dollars in investment capital and lost human lives to a ruling from a league about unsportsmanlike behavior is an absurdity of unimaginable proportion.

The inescapable consequences that follow the ignoring of the laws of physics, or the just retribution of a society's legal system upon those who violate its laws cannot possibly be compared to some rec league board deciding to alter the rules of a game.

To suggest that any official should refuse to comply with the board's desires based upon such incredibly flawed logic is as absurd as the comparison made to justify it.

[blindzebra]

Mark you said that this ruling is unfair to the bigger girls,okay,but most rec leagues at this level don't allow:

1. Zone defense.Unfair to less athletic players.

2. Press.Unfair to the more athletic players.

3. Isolation offense.Unfair to more advanced players.

Get the point,yet?

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Besides, the league certainly has the right to make that rule if they want.

[/B]

It's already covered under the existing rules. The league is saying that this type of play is unsporting, and they want their officials to call it as unsporting.[/B][/QUOTE]

This sounds like the job of a rules interpreter. Based on Mark's signature line, this probably crosses a fundamental line of demarcation when leagues begin to interpret rules.

Can't have layment doing the job of a highly trained and certified professional. They might apply common sense to this situation, when we clearly need a detailed examination of the moving screen rule.

[CYO Butch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Originally posted by CYO Butch

My old league! This is where I got my start, CYOB. Where do you play, and who runs your league? Who made this call (if you don't mind saying)? I know a lot of the folks at Rec and they are good people. We worked on some coach and league issues back a few years.

I don't rembember who the key people were in the rec league back then. I was coaching the Clarksburg ES girls, and the "sweep" was used against us in the second game of the season. One girl was hurt (only minor, but did not go back in the game), and a number of the others got bumps and bruises well in excess of anything from any other team all season. It was also our only game when we were shooting foul shots because of more than 10 fouls on the other team, and this game it was BOTH halves. I almost had to verbally restrain one of my player's dad who was so furious at the other coach I was afraid a fight was going to break out.

I talked to the officials at half-time about it, but maybe they were trained by MTD , since they said they couldn't do anything except when there was contact. They also said, however, that they would address the issue at their weekly meeting with the rec department. It was the following week that the ruling came out. I was tremendously impressed by the rec department AND the officials they used, even when they were young ones. Everybody, except that one coach, seemed to understand why everybody was there. As they used to say "Rule 1, This is for the kids; Rule 2, Treat everybody with respect; Rule 3 ...; Rule 10, if you can't figure it out, see Rule 1."

I've also worked with the Gaithersburg City rec department, and they too are a pretty great group. In their league, the officials are all (or used to be 100 years ago) employees of the rec department, and while they weren't always the best at that job, they incorpated teaching into their officating role and they were a joy to be around for the young teams.

The DC area has plenty of high power teams, and for those kids for whom intense competition is important they (or should I say their parents, at least for the very young ones) have plenty of choices. Somehow, I doubt that any of them have to worry about the Green Bay Sweep. The last I checked, this was still not anybody's idea of teaching basketball (well, except maybe in NW Ohio )

btw, MTD, I vacation on Middle Bass Island in a cottage my grandfather built in the 1920's, and I LOVE NW Ohio!

[Jimgolf]

Sorry, Mark, but it seems you are saying that when you get to ref in the NBA, you will call three-point goals from the 19'9" line, not the 23'9" line, because it is in the NFHS or NCAA rule book, or eject players after the 5th foul, not the 6th.

Leagues make the rules, referees enforce them. If you check with the rec league rules, I'm sure they say that NFHS rules will be followed, except where specified in the league rules (ex. no zone defenses, mercy rule, no dunking, each player must play 8 minutes per game, etc.) If the league changes the rules in the middle of the season, the rules still must be enforced.

[Bart Tyson]

I am a liberal Democrat who abors political correctness.
[/B]

Isn't this a oxymoron?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
A team of 3rd grade girls, and the coach had them run a power sweep to the right. His two biggest girls lined up in a mini stack just above the circle, and as the point dribbled up to them, they took off to the right, almost shoulder to shoulder, with the point guard dribbling right behind them. They would get a couple of fouls called early in a game, but the intimidation factor was so great that after a couple of times, the girls from the other teams would just run out of their way. After two games of doing this, the rec department got on the coach's case (in writing) and also told the officials (in writing) that this was considered unsportsmanlike conduct any any further use of it would be a "T".

I guess the guy went back to football, since he kind of dropped out of sight after that season.

Above is the original play we have been discussing. If Team A had used its two smallest players to effect the moving screen would the recreation department had issued a directive that this type of play is to be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. I think not. The fact that Team A used its two biggest players is what has everybody's briches in a bind.

The best way to handle this type of screening action is to enforce it per the rules. If contact occurs and it is the result of a player from Team A not setting the screen correctly, charge the player from Team A with the appropriate charging or pushing foul. And, if contact occurs and it is the result of a player from Team B not obtaining a legal guarding position or from setting her own illegal screen then charge the player from Team B with a blocking foul.

Furthermore, how many times have we had coaches complain to us about moving screens and we, correcttly, told them that since there was no contact there was no foul. How can we now tell a coach that we are going to charge one of his players with an unsportsmanlike technical foul for setting a moving screen, where no contact occured, thus making the moving screen a legal screen.

I am sorry, but I reiterate my position, that the recreation department's directive is nothing more than political correctness run amok.

[Hawks Coach]

I find this to be rules interpretation run amok. You and your rulebook appear to stand alone on this one.