...Maybe crab apples. ;)
mick

This oughta be good...

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif

You're gonna have a long wait. This is the kindlier,gentler JR you're dealing with now. I don't lose my temper at all anymore. My emotions are always under the strictest control.

Iow, you can stick that popcorn up your a$$!

Oh, is it a different call now if the dribbler does get his head and shoulders past 2 defenders who have LGP and are less than 3 feet apart before he causes the contact? My case book doesn't seem to say that is, but oh well......

What's your call in that case then? And don't forget to cite a rule that will support it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Rule book 10 art 2...If the dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for SUBSEQUENT contact is on THE OPPONENT.

Got you with your own rule support, so now what? [/B][/QUOTE]

How about highlighting a little more....particulary the word "GREATER".

A stationary defender can NEVER be called for a block if the are in a legal guarding position and don't move. Once the dribbler get's H&S past the defender(s), they are no longer in LGP and lose the right to move. That's why they now have the greater responsibility but they do not have the sole responsibility.

Crikey...that's gotta hurt

http://www.rotaryryla.com/images/2003pix/crikey.JPG

Rule book 10 art 2...If the dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for SUBSEQUENT contact is on THE OPPONENT.

Got you with your own rule support, so now what?
[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, it seems to say "an opponent". Not between TWO opponents- but "AN" opponent. As in ONE opponent. Apples and oranges? NAH!!

Maybe I got a faulty casebook. Mine doesn't seem to have any written restrictions in the case book play that I cited. They musta left out the section that says "This case book play doesn't apply if the dribbler gets his head and shoulders by a defender". Maybe when I get an altered case book that says that, I might agree with you. Until then......

Waste of time arguing with you. Call it any way you want. [/B][/QUOTE]

Try reading the RULE that your case play is under,10 art.2
where it clearly says two defenders or a defender and a boundary.

You were wrong and I gave you rule support to prove it, in fact it was the same rule that you were incorrectly using for the original play in this thread.

The only thing you did get right was this being a waste of time.

Gee, it seems to say "an opponent". Not between TWO opponents- but "AN" opponent. As in ONE opponent. Apples and oranges? NAH!!

Maybe I got a faulty casebook. Mine doesn't seem to have any written restrictions in the case book play that I cited. They musta left out the section that says "This case book play doesn't apply if the dribbler gets his head and shoulders by a defender". Maybe when I get an altered case book that says that, I might agree with you. Until then......

Waste of time arguing with you. Call it any way you want. [/B][/QUOTE]

Try reading the RULE that your case play is under,10 art.2
where it clearly says two defenders or a defender and a boundary.

You were wrong and I gave you rule support to prove it, in fact it was the same rule that you were incorrectly using for the original play in this thread.

The only thing you did get right was this being a waste of time. [/B][/QUOTE]

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif

Gee, it seems to say "an opponent". Not between TWO opponents- but "AN" opponent. As in ONE opponent. Apples and oranges? NAH!!

Maybe I got a faulty casebook. Mine doesn't seem to have any written restrictions in the case book play that I cited. They musta left out the section that says "This case book play doesn't apply if the dribbler gets his head and shoulders by a defender". Maybe when I get an altered case book that says that, I might agree with you. Until then......

Waste of time arguing with you. Call it any way you want. [/B][/QUOTE]

You were wrong and I gave you rule support to prove it, in fact it was the same rule that you were incorrectly using for the original play in this thread.

The only thing you did get right was this being a waste of time.

[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, I believe that I'll stick with my answer above. You quoted one sentence out of a rules section that has many completely different scenarios in it, and you're trying to relate that scenario to a different scenario laid out in a different sentence. You're also completely ignoring a case book play that relates to one specific scenario in that section- and that specific scenario just happens to be the one under discussion- i.e. a dribbler trying to go between 2 legal defenders who are less than 3 feet apart. A dribbler trying to get past ONE defender doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in that casebook play, that I can see. It's a waste of time writing it out again. Don't forget to write the FED and tell them that their casebook play is wrong, and you are right. Please let us know their answer when you get their reply back.

Silly me. I always thought that the rules interpretations in the casebook were put out to further explain different articles of the rulebook. I guess that that concept doesn't really apply to casebook play 10.6.2SitC, and we're supposed to ignore it. As I said, do whatever you want to,believe whatever you want to, and call whatever you want to.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 26th, 2004 at 01:20 AM]

You were wrong and I gave you rule support to prove it, in fact it was the same rule that you were incorrectly using for the original play in this thread.

The only thing you did get right was this being a waste of time.

[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, I believe that I'll stick with my answer above. You quoted one sentence out of a rules section that has many completely different scenarios in it, and you're trying to relate that scenario to a different scenario laid out in a different sentence. You're also completely ignoring a case book play that relates to one specific scenario in that section- and that specific scenario just happens to be the one under discussion- i.e. a dribbler trying to go between 2 legal defenders who are less than 3 feet apart. A dribbler trying to get past ONE defender doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in that casebook play, that I can see. It's a waste of time writing it out again. Don't forget to write the FED and tell them that their casebook play is wrong, and you are right. Please let us know their answer when you get their reply back.

Silly me. I always thought that the rules interpretations in the casebook were put out to further explain different articles of the rulebook. I guess that that concept doesn't really apply to casebook play 10.6.2SitC, and we're supposed to ignore it. As I said, do whatever you want to,believe whatever you want to, and call whatever you want to.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 26th, 2004 at 01:20 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]

It must be great to ignore the fact that 10-6-2 in the rule book is what your casebook play is taken from and to sum up if contact occurs while A1 is ATTEMPTING to get between the defenders then A1 has the greater responsibilty
for the contact, which is what your casebook play says. 10-6-2 continues with if A1 gets head and shoulders past the 2 defenders or 1 defender and the boundary, WITHOUT causing contact any subsequent contact puts the greater responsibility on the defender(s).

Is that simple enough for you to understand? If the contact is before the head and shoulders get past it is a charge, if it is after it is a block. Your casebook only deals with ATTEMPTING, it is not all inclusive of the rule from which it is based.

I'll call it the right way, which is the way it is written in the rulebook.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif

[/B][/QUOTE]Nah, ain't gonna happen. Why would I get mad? This uh, gentleman isn't saying I'm wrong. He's saying that the NFHS case book is wrong. Let the FED argue with him, if they feel like it.

I'll call it the right way, which is the way it is written in the rulebook.

[/B][/QUOTE]Feel free to ignore the case book play also.

Night,night.

Feel free to ignore the case book play also.

Night,night. [/B][/QUOTE]

The Rulebook includes the play in the casebook. I never said the casebook was wrong, what was wrong was you comparing a play where a dribbler caused contact while ATTEMPTING to split defenders, to a player driving between two defenders where A1 got his head and shoulders past the defenders WITHOUT contact and then there was contact.

It is simple really,I'm sorry if it is too complex for you to grasp.

Yes. It is simple. B1 and B2 both had acquired legal positions on the floor. They did nothing to make the position illegal (such as moving). They are entitled to those spots. Foul (if any) on A1.

Directly from 10-6-2
"If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent."

Nowhere does 10-6-2 talk about head and shoulders past two opponents, or past an opponent stationary next to the boundary. You are guilty of completely rewriting the rule.

Oh, but 10-6-2, in the immediate sentence before mentions the two opponent situation and the boundary situation, and give a ruling for those consistent with JR's - hence you want to tie that thought to the next sentence, which mentions head and shoulders. However, the sentence following the head and shoulders sentence talks about a dribbler moving in a straight line, which has nothing to do with the head and shoulders scenario, or the trap/boundary scenario. Three scenarios, three different rules related only by the fact that they all involve a dribbler.

In other words, 10-6-2 has within it apples, oranges, and bananas, and it is you who are mixing them and trying to blend two unrelated sentences. 10-6-2 has several unrelated provisions regarding dribblers and the responsibility for contact. I have always felt that the contact section could be better broken up with a), b) c) provisions, but it is not. So let common sense, the casebook, and a simple reading of the entire rule prevail here and admit that you have erred in your interpretation.

Mick, both you and Bob Jenkins had a no call on this situation while most others had a PC albeit for different reasons. Why the no call? How can you have non incidental contact that puts both players at a disadvantage and have a no call? Dbyb