Lah me. Who really gives a damn if you're gonna consider our points, you condescending little dexter.

Wow! 1988 eh? I bow to your amazing amount of experience. I've only been doing games since...oh...1959. And,fyi, that rule has been in place since.....oh....at least 1959.

Experience doesn't mean squat. A knowledge of the rules does mean something. You obviously don't have that knowledge. Equally obvious, you don't want to admit that you are clueless. BktBallRef takes the time to cite the complete case play for you and explain the concept, and all you can say is "Naw, that ain't right". Well, I got a novel little concept for ya. <b>You</b> cite a NFHS rule that negates that case book play and backs up your little flight of fantasy.

No matter what, call it any damn way that you freaking want to. You will anyway, because you obviously don't believe any of us. Why are you wasting your time here anyway if nobody here knows anything? Or are you trying to educate the masses from your vast knowledge of the FED rule book?

Lah, me. Big hat, no cattle!

Note:edited to replace a word that I used with "dexter" instead.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 21st, 2005 at 07:19 AM]

Re: Re:
 

The casebook author(s) is(are) simply wrong on this interpretation, even in the narrow setting they've described. [/B][/QUOTE]That may just be the most amazing quote that I have ever seen on this forum, and I''ve seen some dandies. Right up there as one of the funniest too.

Aggie is right and the rule book is wrong. Yup, you heard it right,folks. All of those people that sit around the table as members of the NFHS rules committee are <b>wrong</b>!. They're wrong because Aggie says they're wrong!

Lah me. :D

Re: Re: Re:
 

And that's even without having done any high school ball for the last five years. I think we should canonize him!

And that's even without having done any high school ball for the last five years. I think we should canonize him! [/B][/QUOTE]Well, that might be going just a tetch too far. Besides, I don't even own a cannon or know where to get one.

I thought you were a Quaker?

Re: Re: Re:
 

That may just be the most amazing quote that I have ever seen on this forum, and I''ve seen some dandies. Right up there as one of the funniest too.

Aggie is right and the rule book is wrong. Yup, you heard it right,folks. All of those people that sit around the table as members of the NFHS rules committee are <b>wrong</b>!. They're wrong because Aggie says they're wrong!

Lah me. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I thought MTD had taken a new screen name. ;)

CaseBook:

10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down. (7-4-1, 2)

RuleBook

Hot damn! That's funny right there, I don't care who you are! :D


Yep, we know Ref Daddy. I already cited it for him and he still doesn't believe us. "The casebook author(s) is(are) simply wrong on this interpretation, even in the narrow setting they've described. " :(

Distinction
 

One note on this case that I haven't seen touched on yet is that in the case the dribbler loses control of the ball which is why there wasn't a traveling violation. I believe that it is save to assume - since there isn't a foul call - that, had the player been holding the ball as he/she fell to the floor, it would have been ruled a travel.

>>Aggie is right and the rule book is wrong. Yup, you heard it right,folks. All of those people that sit around the table as members of the NFHS rules committee are wrong!. They're wrong because Aggie says they're wrong!<<

Hmm. No argument, just a weak attempt at an ad-hominem. The interpretation is wrong because 1)it is inconsistent with other rules and 2) it ignores that basketball is not a game where laying on the floor is to be given precedence over being on one's own two feet. If, in the same play, the ball carrier trips over the feet of a standing player, it is likely a foul, depending on relative time and distance requirements and where his feet are. If you've actually worked games, can you tell me you've NEVER called such a play a blocking foul on the defender?

Argue that instead of making immature and idiotic comments. And don't assume that the rule writers are perfect. There could be political reasons for that interpretation.

>>I already cited it for him and he still doesn't believe us.<<

It isn't an issue of my belief (please stick to the argument at hand), but you cited the interp, and then argued it applied to a situation where it clearly did not.

I fail to understand why you think this interpretation applies to situations that, based on the express wording, make it inapplicable. Your inability to explain that is the problem, not my opinion on the soundness of the interp, which, really isn't relevent to the issue of when the interp applies and when it doesn't.

>>A knowledge of the rules does mean something. You obviously don't have that knowledge.<<

Wanna put $1000 bet on a rules test?

>>BktBallRef takes the time to cite the complete case play for you and explain the concept, and all you can say is "Naw, that ain't right". Well, I got a novel little concept for ya. You cite a NFHS rule that negates that case book play and backs up your little flight of fantasy.<<

If you would actually read what I wrote, and try to understand it, you would find that I already did just that.

Do I need to show you my posts, or are you actually capable of reading the entire post?

I didn't say, "naw, that ain't right." Don't make things up. What I said was that 1) I strongly disagree with the interpretation -- i.e., I don't think the casebook authors are correct. If its approved, its approved and if I were working HS games and my state association said to use all ARs, I'd use it; and 2) (the real issue) that the interp doesn't apply to the original post and the original question.

Those might just be the all-time stoopidest things that I've ever read on this forum, notwithstanding your previous post. It's a toss-up as which one of them is dumber. Again, the NFHS written rules are <b>wrong</b> because Aggie says so. Know what? It's just a waste of time trying to argue anything with you, and I'm not even gonna try. You obviously know everything already.

Btw, yup, I've worked a few games in the last 46 years. A few thousand! Do you wanna know what that buys me on this forum in the way of credibility? Nada! Zippo! Nuthin'! Zero! Nil!.....Get the point?

Immature and idiotic? You wrote the book on that, dexterhead!

Lah me!

I'm not going to get into a name calling war with you even though that's clearly what you want.

>>It's just a waste of time trying to argue anything with you, and I'm not even gonna try.<<

Its only a waste of time if you think you'll lose the argument.

If my writings are truly as stupid as you suggest, you should have no problem refuting them. Instead, you ignore them and pretend that I claim to be some sort of know it all, and that excuses you from attempted refutation.

Where exactly did I claim to know everything? Are you suggesting that since I make an argument, stick to it, refute things that I don't agree with, etc., that I am claiming to "know it all?" Why couldn't I say the same thing about you? You, after all, have refused to answer my specific questions or respond specifically to what I wrote relevent to the issue at hand. Add to that all the "stupidest" references as if you think you are bullying me or convincing others. None of that bothers me, BTW, but I do think it makes you look a bit silly or childish.

Why don't you calm down and come back to the table and discuss the issues. Here are my points, as clearly and as quickly as I can make them. If you disagree, please say so and argue, without theatrics and name calling, why you disagree, or why you think I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with a situation where one of us doesn't convince the other.

1. IF I called Fed, which I don't, I would follow the interp, assuming the state assn. said follow it. However, my OPINION is that the interp is incorrect. That OPINION is based on factors that I've already discussed and would simply be cutting and pasting -- which I will do if you truly can not find the relevent post. For now, at least look for it. If you are unclear which post, let me know.

2. Totally separate from my OPINION on the interp, I asked for the stated AR because I wanted to see what SPECIFIC instance the interp dealt with. When I read the interp, it was clear, at least to me, that the interp didn't reference the issue that the original post did. I'm not going to lie to you: since I don't agree with the interp, I'd probably look for ways to get around it. HOWEVER, notwithstanding that, I don't believe officials should call things based on an interp that isn't necessarily applicable to another situation, given the fact that there are other rules that are applicable.

If an interp made a reference to a play where A was "holding" a ball, and B was "attempting to steal" the ball, is it truly unreasonable to say that the AR doesn't NECESSARILY apply to a situation where A falls down under the basket and B is coming down on a rebound and neither a "holding" nor a "steal" happened?

If you can get three people (other than you) to say I am being unreasonable in making the argument in the above paragraph, I PROMISE I won't say another word on the issue.

#1
 

You're being unreasonable.