Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Main Entry: 1pros·ti·tute
Pronunciation: 'präs-t&-"tüt, -"tyüt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -tut·ed; -tut·ing
Etymology: Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere, from pro- before + statuere to station -- more at PRO-, STATUTE
1 : to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money

From http://www.webster.com

sorry couldn't resist...if not for money wouldn't they be called another name?

Actually, on this board, to ask a simple, specific question and get five decent responses in four pages is pretty darn good! Next time I have a simple, specific question, I'll have you post it.

Tell them, the spirit and intent of the rule is to keep a player from getting an advantage, the player DID NOT gain an advantage coach.

You have three choices.
1) A rules clinic.
2) Smile and nod.
3) A quick, "I didn't see a violation." Or, even perhaps, "Did it really hurt your team coach?"

If he asks during a timeout, simply say, "No one was disadvantaged coach, I'd give you the same courtesy."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Snaqwells, I agree with your post. I'm just wondering why Robmoz was singled out for this when others do the same thing. I'm not going to name names but I think a lot of people that are on this board a lot should be able to see that others make posts that are a little rough around the edges. Some of these people have "friends" on this board that will come to their rescue to defend them having never met them face to face. I can see someone's posts and say to myself "I like their style" or whatever but I can't really speak up for them like I see on this board. The same goes for someone that might irritate me, the person that initially gets on your nerves could turn out to be one of your best friends when you get to know them. Good post, I just think it applies to us all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

tomegun,
Good points. There’s a subtle difference, though. Most of the time when it gets to that point, debate (I prefer discussion over debate) has ceased for various reasons. Sometimes one side is fed up and expresses that frustration/annoyance/fatigue/etc. Sometimes it just plain escalates to ad hominem.

The difference here is that there was an expressed interest in “debate,” but posts that seemed designed to generate laughs from a college dorm.

To me, that is the difference between having fun (making fun of Chuck or Jurassic), getting annoyed (BBAllCoach), getting overly heated (MTD), and attempts at legitimate discussion that are marred by sophomoric responses. If I didn’t think Rob was interested in discussion, I’d have probably left it alone and chalked it up to another fanboy or frustrated coach. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and offered my advice, FWIW.

If I respond to this type of situation at all, I usually say something along the lines of "Coach, I have more important things to watch for right now. Thanks for the help, though." And then move right along...and I must add that responding to a situation like this does not happen very often with me...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

That's the spirit Snaq!

I welcome all of your comments, consider them for their merit and intent, absorb them to best of my ability, respond when I feel the inclination to do so, but most of all I hope I never truly insult or offend anyone with my written word here. I enjoy the stimulating commentaries and spirited discussions...<humbly submitted>

Snaqwells, I didn't think what you said was really wrong. I just wish it was that way across the board. Although that isn't realistic, it makes me queasy when I see someone post "I'm sure Joe Blow wouldn't do that because he is a great official" or "Mr. Blow, I know you are good official because..." All this happens when you have never met the guy! I have been told that I question everything until I see it but come on! Anyone who has played ball, can read the rulebook, can read the threads on this forum and type can seem to be an official in the know.

One of my best friends has cussed me out before in public and private about something I did on the court, something I didn't do on the court or for having a "yeah but" attitude. He didn't do it for sport, he did it for me. In life that might not be the best approach but officiating is already something where we are going to hear the negative more than the positive. If the negative is meant to work out a situation or help then it needs to be said. I can accept the critism if some think this point of view is wrong but that is OK. See, if I was always right, like some think they are, then I would have this whole officiating thing solved and I would be doing the Laker game tonight. :D

Robmoz, what part of the country are you from?

The Motor City....and you?

Well, I don't advocate it on ANY free throw. And seeing that I'm responsible for training, evaluating and assigning ALL of the officials in my area, I also don't think that I do not now, or ever, have really had any problems communicating with other officials. I can also tell you that I have talked this specific subject over with many other trainers and evaluators( including quite a few at the NCAA conference level), and I have never heard a single one ever advocate what you suggest. The general mechanic in use is exactly as Chuck pointed out. The administering official simply states the # of shots to be taken.

To be honest, I really don't think that you have a clue what you are talking about( no offense intended). [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that too often that for the sake of "communicating" we take too long to put the ball back in play. I think this is why evaluators hate it, is that it takes too long and it slows things down. I believe in preventive officiating. If I am lead as I tell players 1 shot and as I am backing up to bounce ball I may say something like "wait until it hits" or "straight in-straight up" It never interferes with the game or its flow, but still reminds players if they are getting close to doing something....

Robmoz, I live in the DC area. I have a friend that lives in Detroit. He just moved there from Vegas last year.

A guy that I really like who has been on the court for many years has a fairly common response to these kinds of questions -- "it was real close coach." I think this is his way of saying "I heard you coach and you're not nuts," but at the same time it has the advantage of not being a white lie, being vague enough to suggest that he took a pass notwithstanding seeing a violation, but not admitting that he did so.

It's pretty rare to see a coach press it after this response.

Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach [B If the ball is in the neighborhood of where the violation occurs (such as your throw-in vioaltion), I have no issue with you saying it impacted the play. I might even think that the lane divider needs to be called where othres do not. Free country. But 3 point line, nowhere near the ball, toe on the line, not making a play - please tell me how that impacts the play of the game. One inch of floor space that distance from the basket won't change a thing, unless a player is trying to gain an unfair advantage.

I hear what you are saying-and agree. But the situation here was not a toe on the line but a clear violation-standing on the line. If it was just a toe I would pretend I didn't see-but what if it is obvious and the ref clearly saw it and the other coach saw it?

Do those of you supporting ignoring the call still recommend ignoring it? Jurassic interested in your opinion (as well as others)

"it was real close coach." suggested by rulesmaven is a good idea and I will use that in the future when it applies-but it doesn't in this one.

[Edited by oc on May 27th, 2004 at 09:23 PM]