![]() |
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Be afraid. Be very afraid! :eek: :D |
Quote:
Ronny: It is obvious from your post above that you are either an inexperienced official who is still learning the ins and outs of the rules, or you are a veteran official who never did learn the rules and only officiate in order to go looking for trouble. Your post above is just plain unalderated nonsense. MTD, Sr. |
MTD,
I'm not either. As a matter of fact, I want to be able to handle trouble IF it presents itself without getting tied up by generic statements like "you cannot have a technical foul if contact occurs during a live ball" unless there is a way around it. i.e. unsporting technical foul. Ignore the contact, penalize the act. You sound frustrated with me, but I did notice that you did not imply that Bob Jenkins was inexperienced or looking for trouble when he expressed his opinion. I think that he stated that there is flexibility there to exercise this option. Is it only me that frustrates you? I am trying to understand your viewpoint by asking questions and if they offend you, I'll quit asking YOU these questions. Or, if as I suspect, you can't answer them, I'll quit asking YOU these questions. But, you have never told me why I can't exercise this unsporting foul option afforded me by rule 4.19.13. When people like JR, Bob Jenkins, TH, Mick or you put forth an opinion, I am going to set up and take notice. But, don't expect me to jump off a cliff just because you do. More importantly, don't try to shout out my opinions with weak attempts at questioning my experiences or motives. My experiences may be suspect but they do involve a lot of years. My motives are not questionable. |
Quote:
Ronny: You can't use NFHS R4-S19-A13, and here is why. The original play of this thread reads as follows: "A1 rebounds missed shot by team B. While in the backcourt, B1 is "smothering" (no contact) A1. A1 "chins" the ball and in frustration intentionally elbows B1. The action was not considered flagrant, but the calling official issued a Technical Foul for unsporting conduct, even though this was a CONTACT foul." A1 intentionally hit B1 with his elbow. The amount of time from the moment that A1 started to swing his elbow at B1 and the moment A1's elbow made contact with B1's chest (I am making an educated assumption that B1 was hit in his chest, because if he was hit in his face A1's foul should have been a flagrant personal foul, but that is another thread) was no more than a second. You have to look at the entire play. If you want to apply NFHS R4-S19-A13 to the time period starting with A1 swinging his elbow until just before his elbo makes contact with B1's chest, then you also must charge A1 with a second technical foul for illegally contacting B1 while the ball was dead, because the ball became dead with the foul under NFHS R4-S19-A13, and you cannot have it both ways. You want to divide a one second play into two seperate acts and you cannot do it. As I said before, if you cannot explain it do not call it. The rules define A1's actions as an intentional personal foul. The rules do not allow for anything more. You talk about A1 swinging his elbows in an intimidating manner so that B1 will not attempt to play defense against him. I quote from my post in this thread of Feb. 25/Fri.(10:22pmEST), 2005: "The situation you described: A1 swinging his elbow and missing B1 is not that same as A1 swinging his elbow and NOT missing B1. In the later, A1 is guilty of a personal foul: common (player control), intentional, or flagrant. In the former, the official has to decide if A1's act is a violation (excessively swinging his elbows), and I should add here that excessively swinging one's elbows without making contact was made an infraction (orginally a violation in both NFHS and NCAA, then a technical foul in NFHS and still a violation in NCAA, and then back to a violation in both NFHS and NCAA) because it was an act that would intimidate a defender from attempting to play defense for fear of getting hit by the offensive player's elbows. If, in the official's judgement, A1 was attempting to hit B1 in the face with his elbow but missed, then A1 is guilty of a flagrant technical foul. My question to you is to tell the group why this is a flagrant technical foul." Furthermore, Daryl Long has quoted NFHS R4-S24-A8 as the rule that applies to your situation when A1 swings his elbows in a way to keep an opponent from playing defense. You cannot apply NFHS R4-S19-A13 to your situation because R4-S24-A8 addresses that specific situation. I repeat my advice to you, do not go looking for trouble where there is none. We have ample rules to apply to the situation being discussed. Lets not forget that if A1 intentionally swings his elbow in an attempt to hit B1 in the face, we know have a flagrant foul. If contact is made, the foul is a personal foul, and if there is no contact it is a technical foul, but in both cases the foul is a flagrant foul. MTD, Sr. [Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 27th, 2005 at 11:33 AM] |
Quote:
JR: I read NFHS Casebook Play 4.18.2 as follows: A1's taunting foul causes the ball to become dead if Team A had managed to get the ball out-of-bounds for its throw-in or to remain dead if Team A had not. That means that B1's punch is a dead ball contact foul and therefore a technical foul. Since A1's actions caused B1 to retaliate, we have a fight, by definition and both A1 and B1 are disquailified. I should point out that taunting by itself can be either a non-flagrant technical foul or a flagrant foul depending upon the nature of the taunt. If B1 had never retaliated and A1's taunt was of a non-flagrant nature, then A1 would not be disquaified. The CB Play does not tell us whether A1's taunt was a non-flagrant or flagrant foul, but if it was a non-flagrant foul, it became flagrant when B1 retaliated. But, before the fighting definition and the cancelling out of free throws for technical fouls, this situation would have been a false double foul. With Team B shooting free throws for A1's technical foul, followed by Team A shooting free throws for B1's technical foul and thenr receiving the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the table. And depending upon the severity of the taunt and the severity of the contact by B1 against A1 either one or both may or may not have been disqualified from the game for a flagrant foul. NFHS CB Play 10.4.4, Sit. A is even more murkey. If the only fouls we have is A1 and B1 punching each other, what difference does it make if we define their actions as a fight or not. Both players are disqualified, no free throws are shot because this is what use to be a true double foul and what is now called a double personal foul. But when bench personnel start leaving the bench area, we now have problems. I have been officiating basketball for 34 years and I probably should not say this, but I have had players mix it up on the court and be disqualified from the game because their actions were flagrant, but I cannot ever remember having bench personnel come on the floor to take part in the festivities. The only situation that came close to that was when fans rushed onto the floor of a boys' varsity game I was officiating in 1984 in Los Angeles when we had an intentional foul with less than two minutes left in the game, and I would rather not discuss that situation here right now. I hope I have answered your question. MTD, Sr. |
MTD,
4-24-8 applies to YOUR situation, but it does not address MY situation. This whole thread started because I disagree with a general statement that states you can't have a technical if contact occurs during a live ball. Also, I disagree that any act involving an elbow HAS to fall under 4-24-8. Rule 4-19-13 allows me this flexibility and DOES address my situations more appropriately. 1. The finger poke is an example where contact occurs during a live ball where I would invoke unsporting technical and you would invoke intentional personal. Or, maybe you would call taunting. If you call either tech, then you are ignoring the contact and penalizing the act. If you call an intentional here, you have set a precedence for the rest of the game. All future finger pokes are intentionals. 2. A Billy Bad $ss intimidating elbow that does not involve contact and it wasn't meant to involve contact, you would invoke violation and I would invoke an unsporting tech for intimidation. An intimidating act treated like walking, 3 seconds, palming, etc? Furthermore, what if the other team had the ball? 3. A player (not both players) pushing another player out of frustration during a live ball is another example of contact during a live ball where you would invoke an intentional and I would invoke an unsporting T. Again, I am ignoring the contact and penalizing the action. On a true-false written test, I guess I just will miss the question if stated that you CAN'T have a tech during live ball situation if contact occurs. During the game, I am not going to miss the opportunity to penalize an intimidating act when I see one. I don't see this as looking for trouble. Who would this trouble? If my stance on this aggravates you, so be it. But, I didn't appreciate you calling me inexperienced or accusing me of an official looking for trouble because I don't agree with you on this. I am not like a lot of people on the board, I do respect your opinion. I heard what you had to say. thanks Mulk |
Quote:
Ronny: You are wrong by rule on all three points. All officials have to be on the same page. You do not want to officate by the rules; you want to officate the way you want to officiate. If that is the way you want to officiate, then I sugguest, quite admantly, that you stop officating basketball because you are doing the game a disservice. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Iow, we have 2 different case book plays about fighting during a live ball that state different penalties. CB4.18.2 says the fighting fouls are flagrant technical fouls--and CB 10.4.4SitA says that the fighting fouls are flagrant personal fouls. [/B][/QUOTE] I read NFHS Casebook Play 4.18.2 as follows: A1's taunting foul causes the ball to become dead if Team A had managed to get the ball out-of-bounds for its throw-in or to remain dead if Team A had not. That means that B1's punch is a dead ball contact foul and therefore a technical foul. [/B][/QUOTE]Naw, I think that you're reading it that way in order to try and support your personal opinion of this debate. The problems still remain that: 1) The case book play does not state that the whistle went before the retaliation. 2) When B1 retaliated, his punch may have missed. It doesn't matter because it's still a fight as per R4-18-1. There goes your dead ball contact foul theory. 3) The whole scenario in this case book play is considered one act. If you didn't consider it that way, then the book call for what you are proposing above isn't a fight but a false double foul. Iow, a technical foul during a live ball for taunting followed by a separate technical foul during the succeeding dead ball for fighting. That's not what the case play says happened. The case plays says that A1's T was for fighting, not taunting. 3) Change that case book play play to A1 taunting by finger-poking. It extrapolates the same way. Double technical foul and the initial T involved contact. If you call it any other way, you're back to a false double foul. 4) Rule 10-3-4 still says that fighting is a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between fighting during a live ball or fighting during a dead ball. If it's fighting during a live ball, you could have contact fouls called Ts. Those citations support some of Mulk's suppositions, and negate yours. Might be wise to slow down on the "leave Dodge" talk to Mulk. You might be on a stagecoach too.:D [Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM] |
MTD,
Do you mean ALL officials have to be on YOUR page? If so, that leaves a lot of officials that need to stop officiating based on some of the debates that you have been involved with on this board. I hope that officials in your area are able to express their opinions without being invited to leave the game if they disagree with you. Furthermore, I hope that they are able to tell you what "I'm fixing to tell you" without fear of their schedules being affected. Naw, I won't. Again, thanks for the discussion. I did learn something. Unlike you, I will consider your opinion, but because of your pompous attitude, I plan to temper the way I share my rules knowledge with guys in our local association. Starting now, I plan to quit requesting that they stop officiating because of their rules ignorance. I have my list out and will be spending all day contacting those that I have asked to leave the game over the years. Mulk |
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Naw, I think that you're reading it that way in order to try and support your personal opinion of this debate. The problems still remain that: 1) The case book play does not state that the whistle went before the retaliation. 2) When B1 retaliated, his punch may have missed. It doesn't matter because it's still a fight as per R4-18-1. There goes your dead ball contact foul theory. 3) The whole scenario in this case book play is considered one act. If you didn't consider it that way, then the book call for what you are proposing above isn't a fight but a false double foul. Iow, a technical foul during a live ball for taunting followed by a separate technical foul during the succeeding dead ball for fighting. That's not what the case play says happened. The case plays says that A1's T was for fighting, not taunting. 3) Change that case book play play to A1 taunting by finger-poking. It extrapolates the same way. Double technical foul and the initial T involved contact. If you call it any other way, you're back to a false double foul. 4) Rule 10-3-4 still says that fighting is a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between fighting during a live ball or fighting during a dead ball. If it's fighting during a live ball, you could have contact fouls called Ts. Those citations support some of Mulk's suppositions, and negate yours. Might be wise to slow down on the "leave Dodge" talk to Mulk. You might be on a stagecoach too.:D [Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM] [/B][/QUOTE] JR: I agree with you completely that the two CB Play's are confusing. But in the Rule 4 CB Play, A1's taunting foul causes the ball to stay dead if it was dead when A1 taunted or to become dead if the ball was live at the time that A1 taunted B1. In either case, A1's foul is a technical foul and B1's foul is a dead ball contact foul and also a techncial foul. And as I stated in my earlier post, the Rule 10 CB Play is just a run of the mill double personal foul between A1 and B1 with both players being disqualified if nothing else happens; bench personnel leaving the bench area to enter the court changes the double personal foul to flagrant technical fouls because A1 and B1's actions are now defined as a fighting. I am not reading the CB Plays to support my opinion, I am reading them per the rules. I just think that the fighting definition could be better written and deleted all together. I think that the CB Plays handled the situations correctly by rule, but the fighting definition is confusing. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Young Man, your reading of the rules tell me that you still have a lot to learn about the rules. I do not suffer lightly officials who do not want to follow the rules or interprete the rules correctly. The logic that you are using cannot be defended. You are trying to divide a single action into two actions so you can impose a penalty that is not supported by rule. I am sorry if you do not appreaciate be spoken to in such a frank manner but any official that attempts to apply the rules in such an illogical manner is just headed for trouble. Remember, what I told you, if you cannot explain it don't call it. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
2) And as I stated in my earlier post, the Rule 10 CB Play is just a run of the mill double personal foul between A1 and B1 with both players being disqualified if nothing else happens;<font color = red> bench personnel leaving the bench area to enter the court changes the double personal foul to flagrant technical fouls because A1 and B1's actions are now defined as a fighting</font>. I am not reading the CB Plays to support my opinion, I am reading them per the rules. I just think that the fighting definition could be better written and deleted all together. I think that the CB Plays handled the situations correctly by rule, but the fighting definition is confusing. [/B][/QUOTE]1) The casebook play does not specify when the ball became dead. You're trying to make it dead at a point in time that will support your opinion. Unfortunately the case book play does not read definitively enough to support your hypothesis. The bottom line is you're still applying your opinion only to this case book play to attain the result that you <b>think</b> should be there. 2) Are you serious? A double personal foul turn into a double technical foul at the waving of Mark's magic wand? C'mon now, Mark. Even for you, that's so far out, it's ridiculous. The case book very plainly and unequivacably says "A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double <b>personal</b> foul". You can dig up James Naismith and J. Dallas Shirley and there's still nowayinhell even with their help that you can turn a double personal foul into a double technical foul in that case play. If there was, it would have been somewhere in that case play already. Lah me! That one's unbelievable. |
You people are beginning to bore the he11 out of me.
|
Quote:
Just stop clicking on the link in the e-mail. You will get only 1 "new reply" notification per time you check the thread. So if you stop reading this thread, you will no longer receive mail concerning replies. Happy? ;) |
Well Tony...I'm bored tonight so I have read all this stuff.
(SWAT team night shift...no terrorists around, so have a lot of time on my hands.) :) Mark, I like the discussion and the way ronny has presented his case. You have made good points per the rules...but so have Bob, JR and others with regards to the flexability issues. I gotta tell ya Mark, I agree with ronny on this finger in the chest thing, (or similar live ball contact, unsporting acts) I gotta believe the powers that be have given us this flexability to judge certain acts, not covered exactly by the rules, the way we see it or even the way we "feel" it. If you want to tell me to "leave Dodge", and I actually adhered to your request, then Dodge City is going to be short one official for a pretty big tournament in a couple weeks. ;) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47pm. |