Slapping Backboard on block shot attempt?

[jritchie]

this happens a lot on the higher levels, and a lot of officials call this basket interference or goal tending and just count the basket.... the correct call supposed to be a technical foul if the slap causes the ball to miss...is there a reason why some refs ignore this rule and call something that is not even possible by rule?????? Or is there a different rule at the college level(ncaa/naia) than in the high school level (nfhs)????

[JRutledge]

The rule is exactly the same at the college level.

I think you have some officials that buy into the myths of basketball and call things they have never read directly in the rulebook. You hear a lot of coaches and players wanting goaltending for this type of action. I think "lesser" officials fall into that trap.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Hey Jeff...Poland?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jritchie
this happens a lot on the higher levels, and a lot of officials call this basket interference or goal tending and just count the basket.... the correct call supposed to be a technical foul if the slap causes the ball to miss.

Just to keep things straight, whether the slap caused the ball to miss or not isn't really a factor in this call. The "T" is for a player INTENTIONALLY slapping the backboard or making the ring vibrate. If the defensive player tried to make a legitimate block in the ref's opinion, and he just missed the ball but still made the backboard vibrate with the miss, then there's no call even if the ball does happen to spin out of the basket.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Hey Jeff...Poland?

I've been wondering for a few days. He changed it right after the debate. Maybe something was said in the debate about it. I don't know.

[Adam]

I know the Polish president isn't happy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005712

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Hey Jeff...Poland?

I've been wondering for a few days. He changed it right after the debate. Maybe something was said in the debate about it. I don't know. [/B][/QUOTE]

President Bush mentioned Poland in the debate as if this was an accomplishment to have them apart of the coalition of the bribed and minipulated. I just found it funny, considering that Poland's history and playing a part in this "war on terror."

It would be like a lottery winner to brag about how much money that have as compared to the Rockefellers. It is kind of a dumb and stupid comment if you ask me.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I've been wondering for a few days. He changed it right after the debate. Maybe something was said in the debate about it. I don't know.

President Bush mentioned Poland in the debate as if this was an accomplishment to have them apart of the coalition of the bribed and minipulated. I just found it funny, considering that Poland's history and playing a part in this "war on terror."

It would be like a lottery winner to brag about how much money that have as compared to the Rockefellers. It is kind of a dumb and stupid comment if you ask me.

Peace [/B][/QUOTE]

Polish troops have died.

You find this "funny"?

If so then you'll find this f'ing hilareous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/na...rint&position=

October 4, 2004
2 Clean Uniforms, Owners' Fates Unknown
By CHARLIE LeDUFF

OCEANSIDE, Calif. - There are two unclaimed military uniforms hanging in Jerry Alexander's dry cleaning shop on Tremont Street.

They are on the rack, side by side, in slots numbered 1781 and 1783. The first is tall and stout. The second is short and thin. Like Steinbeck's Lenny and George. Like a pair of cousins.

Number 1781 arrived at the shop, Dorothy's laundry, in December 2002. Number 1783 came in October 2002, just a few months before the men and women of the First Marine Expeditionary Force stationed at nearby Camp Pendleton shipped out for the Persian Gulf.

The uniforms have gone unclaimed since then, nearly two years, hanging like bones in an anatomy lecture. They will remain, Mr. Alexander said, until the Iraq conflict is over and all the marines come home.

"Even if it takes five years," he promised. "Even if it takes 10."

Mr. Alexander does not know what happened to the men to whom the uniforms belong. Perhaps they abandoned the clothing. That sometimes happens, though rarely. Perhaps they forgot to get their laundry before they shipped out, but what were the odds? Two uniforms in a row, with an empty space between. Numbers 1781 and 1783.

There is a third, more malignant possibility: a dead man cannot claim a clean shirt.

There are names on the yellowing tickets affixed to the plastic that covers the camouflage fatigues, but Mr. Alexander has not read them or checked them against the list of the killed or wounded. His curiosity does not work that way, he said. Nor will he divulge the names to a stranger; that would be a dereliction of decency.

The First Marine Expeditionary Force left in January 2003 and fought its way to Baghdad. When the Marines triumphantly returned, Mr. Alexander hung a banner on his shop: "Welcome Home, Job Well Done."

No one came, though, to claim numbers 1781 and 1783.

Last March, the Marines shipped out for a second tour. The body count began to rise - the number of dead Americans has passed 1,000 - and Mr. Alexander took the sign down.

In peaceful times, there are 35,000 marines stationed at Camp Pendleton. But more than half are now in Iraq and Kuwait. [As of Oct. 3, the Pentagon had confirmed the deaths of 149 of them.]

This community to the south of the base, with movie houses and taverns and dry cleaners, is all but empty, a ghost town, the Santa Ana winds blowing scraps and plastic bags through the alleys, the sounds of the pressing machine and the smell of solvents seeping out of the dry cleaning shop.

Mr. Alexander is a self-deprecating man. A self-described nobody. He is no armchair pundit, just a guy with a mustache and a small business in a military town. No one pays him for his opinion, but he has one. Take it or leave it.

"You can't say you support the troops but you don't support the mission," Mr. Alexander said in his cluttered office. "I don't think that it's possible. That just hurts the troops, what they're trying to do."

It is a false sentiment, he believes, created by people ashamed that in their youth they called soldiers serving in Vietnam "baby killers." Mr. Alexander remembers; he was cleaning uniforms back then.

But the uniforms hanging in his shop today, and the empty streets and the headlines and the casualty reports and the recollections of Vietnam, have had an effect. "I have doubts, everybody has doubts now," he said about the situation in Iraq. "It's gone on so long now. There's been a lot of casualties from Pendleton. We feel it here."

And so Mr. Alexander peruses the list of the dead in the local paper, hoping not to find the name of a friend who is a gunnery sergeant. He looks forward to the day his friend returns so they can go to a Padres game. He will buy the sergeant a beer and pat him on the shoulder and tell him thanks for the service.

And he hopes that two men will walk through his front door, one thick, one thin, each with $7 in hand and a claim receipt, for 1781 or 1783. Though the tickets say that all articles left over 30 days may be sold for charges, the uniforms will be waiting. He will tell the men thanks for the service. And no charge for the storage.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Oct 4th, 2004 at 07:48 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


Polish troops have died.

You find this "funny"?

If so then you'll find this f'ing hilareous.

War is never hilarious. But the fact that the President of the United States tried to use Poland as a barometer for how this war is going and the countries that support the United States was rather a joke. Sorry, but that is a really big joke to me.

I find it funny that people in the Sudan are dying every day, but we are not sending troops there. I wonder why? I guess people dying in Africa are not as important as protecting the interests of Israel. I guess it goes to show that this war was not about the killing of innocent people. Or was it about terror? Or was it about a stable Middle East (Sadam Hussein was stable).

Peace

[Adam]

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski (translated by Arthur Chrenkoff).

"It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice. . . . I don't think it's a question of ignorance. One thing has to be said very clearly: this Coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain and Australia, but there's also contribution of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who died in Iraq. It's immoral to not see this involvement we undertook because we believe that we have to fight terrorism together, that we need to show international solidarity, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world.

"From such a perspective, you can say we are disappointed that our stance and the sacrifice of our soldiers is so marginalised. I blame it on electioneering--and a message, indirectly expressed by Senator Kerry--that he thinks more of a coalition that would put the United States together with France and Germany, that is those who in the matter of Iraq said 'no.'

"President Bush is behaving like a true Texan gentleman--he's fighting for the recognition of other countries' contribution in the Coalition."

[Adam]

Perhaps Kerry should make the argument that Iraq was better off with the stability of Saddam.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Perhaps Kerry should make the argument that Iraq was better off with the stability of Saddam.

I thought we went to war because Iraq was a threat to the United States, not because he was good or bad for Iraq. Or is that a different position from the original reason we were given? Or was it for terrorism? Or was it for Weapons of Mass Destruction? Which excuse was it?

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Lets put Kerry's comments in its proper context. Kerry was speaking about the initial "conquest" of Iraq when he spoke of only U.S. and British troops being involved (I think that there may have been some Australian troops involved also.) After "cessation" of hostilities other countries have sent troops to Iraq. Poland was one of these countries.

I have never fled from a good political discussion, but I think that this discussion should be moved to the General Forum.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It has been brought to my attention that some people thought that I had closed this thread. I am not sure who closed this thread but I did NOT close it. I just suggested that the political discussion portion of it would be better served in the General Forum. I would like to see it this thread continue its discussion on making contact with the the backboard.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I thought we went to war because Iraq was a threat to the United States, not because he was good or bad for Iraq. Or is that a different position from the original reason we were given? Or was it for terrorism? Or was it for Weapons of Mass Destruction? Which excuse was it?

Peace

Does it have to be just a single reason. I'm sure the decision to go to war had many facets and was not a simple decision. Those that try to require a single reason are only looking for a way to criticize those who were face with making a very difficult decision.

One of the above mentioned reasons alone is not be sufficent for choosing to go to war. Going to Iraq was the cumulative influence of all of the above. I'm sure that every conflict that the US has EVER been in had the USA's interest in mind in addition to all other possible issues.

Also, don't discount the fact that many people in power in Arab nations would really like to completely eliminate Israel. If Israel never struck again, they would continue to be attacked.