team control foul

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by jbduke
No, I'm not missing the point. I draw a distinction between the appropriateness of "over the back," and "offensive foul." The former is not a useful descriptor because of the difference between its denotation and connotation, and the respective relationships to the rulebook. In the case of the latter expression, however, no substantive conflict exists.

Some officials use the phrase "offensive foul," and when we do, we are intending to describe a play in which the offense committed a foul. That the phrase "offensive foul" does not appear in a Fed or NCAA rulebook does not mitigate against its usefulness as a descriptive term, and I fail to see why you feel that attempting to correct someone on this point is an efficient use of time.

That said, I am indeed convinced that you DO consider it an efficient use of your time, and I will now cease and desist all attempts to convince you otherwise.

JB:

You are missing the point. We, as officials, are held to a higher standard. As Fred Horgan, of Canada (Past President of IAABO and FIBA Technical Committee Member), officials are the keeper of the game. Just ask all of the basketball officials who have become OhioHSAA registered basketball officials by passing my basketball officiating class between 1990 and 1999. Just ask to all of the basketball officials who have attended rules/mechanics meetings that I have conducted as a rules interpreter over the years.

Lay people use non-rule based language. Officials are not lay people. When an official usesthe correct language it is more difficult for him to be accused of improperly applying the rules.

As I stated in my third post of this thread, Using the correct language leaves not doubt as to what actually happened in a particular play.

I guess it is my nature as a rules interpreter and member of several national basketball officiating committees to be an educator to expect my fellow officials to use the correct language.

MTD, Sr.

[rainmaker]

You're both missing the point. It was a JOKE!!!

Offenseive foul as committed by the offense. Offensive as in shocking, low, naughty. GEt it? It's called a pun. You're supposed to laugh, not lecture, see?

Get it??

Okay, forget it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker
You're both missing the point. It was a JOKE!!!

Offenseive foul as committed by the offense. Offensive as in shocking, low, naughty. GEt it? It's called a pun. You're supposed to laugh, not lecture, see?

Get it??

Okay, forget it.

Juulie:

I knew that you meant "offensive as in shocking, low, naughty." But, we, as officials, do a diservice to the game when we do not use correct terminology.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 24th, 2006 at 03:34 PM]

[jbduke]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JB:

You are missing the point. We, as officials, are held to a higher standard. As Fred Horgan, of Canada (Past President of IAABO and FIBA Technical Committee Member), officials are the keeper of the game. Just ask all of the basketball officials who have become OhioHSAA registered basketball officials by passing my basketball officiating class between 1990 and 1999. Just ask to all of the basketball officials who have attended rules/mechanics meetings that I have conducted as a rules interpreter over the years.

Lay people use non-rule based language. Officials are not lay people. When an official usesthe correct language it is more difficult for him to be accused of improperly applying the rules.

As I stated in my third post of this thread, Using the correct language leaves not doubt as to what actually happened in a particular play.

I guess it is my nature as a rules interpreter and member of several national basketball officiating committees to be an educator to expect my fellow officials to use the correct language.

MTD, Sr.

1. I've understood you the whole time. Hard as it may be for you to believe, one can simultaneously understand you and find you offensive.

2. In your quest to purge officials of certain parts of their descriptive vocabulary, you have become a pedant.

3. That I believe #2 to be true does not by necessity imply that I attach no significance to basketball syntax; in fact, quite the contrary is true.

[Edited by jbduke on Jan 23rd, 2006 at 02:12 AM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by jbduke

1. I've understood you the whole time. Hard as it may be for you to believe, one can simultaneously understand you and disagree with you.

2. In your quest to purge officials of certain parts of their descriptive vocabulary, you have become a pedant.

3. That I believe #2 to be true does not by necessity imply that I attach no significance to syntax; in fact, quite the contrary is true.

JB:

Do you know the difference between a centripetal force and a centrifugal force?

If you know the difference between the two forces then you will understand why I expect officials to use correct terminology when discussing the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jbduke
No, I'm not missing the point. I draw a distinction between the appropriateness of "over the back," and "offensive foul." The former is not a useful descriptor because of the difference between its denotation and connotation, and the respective relationships to the rulebook. In the case of the latter expression, however, no substantive conflict exists.

(Rhetorical question alert) In FED ball, if the team inbounding the ball commits a foul, is it an offensive foul? Certainly some fans (and coaches) would say it is, and wonder why it's treated differently than an "offensive foul" committed during "regular" action (as opposed to a throw-in -- I'm having a hard time describing this without using the term Team control.)

Heck, some fans and coaches would claim that a foul during rebounding action is an offensive foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JB:

Do you know the difference between a centripetal force and a centrifugal force?

If you know the difference between the two forces then you will understand why I expect officials to use correct terminology when discussing the rules.

MTD, Sr.

HUh???

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

HUh???

Juulie:

Its not a trick question. What is the difference between a centripetal force and a centrifugal force?

MTD, Sr.

[ChuckElias]

My understanding is that centrifugal force is actually not a force at all. The sensation that you feel when the car turns (and you feel pressed against the seat belt in the opposite direction) is caused by the change in direction of the seat belt and is not a force that is exerted by your body at all. It's the centripidal force that is pushing you into the same direction as the car.

Am I right?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My understanding is that centrifugal force is actually not a force at all. The sensation that you feel when the car turns (and you feel pressed against the seat belt in the opposite direction) is caused by the change in direction of the seat belt and is not a force that is exerted by your body at all. It's the centripidal force that is pushing you into the same direction as the car.

Am I right?

Chuck:

YES!! YES!! YES!! Someone who actually understands why I have been harping and nagging, yes I said harping and nagging, about using correct terminology when discussing the rules.

Thank you Chuck. You have made my day.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 24th, 2006 at 03:36 PM]

[SeanFitzRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
YES!! YES!! YES!! Someone who actually understands why I have been harping and nagging, yes I said harping and nagging, about using correct terminalogy when discussing the rules.

Thank you Chuck. You have made my day.

Is this like moving screen and illegal screen?? Where are JRut and JR when you need 'em??

Chuck, can you make MTD's SPELLING day???

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Chuck:

YES!! YES!! YES!! Someone who actually understands why I have been harping and nagging, yes I said harping and nagging, about using correct terminalogy when discussing the rules.

Thank you Chuck. You have made my day.

MTD, Sr.

I have made it a rule not to argue with you, Mark. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. But I just gotta say, I think you're really being way too serious here. Just way, way, way too serious.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by jbduke
No, I'm not missing the point. I draw a distinction between the appropriateness of "over the back," and "offensive foul." The former is not a useful descriptor because of the difference between its denotation and connotation, and the respective relationships to the rulebook. In the case of the latter expression, however, no substantive conflict exists.

Some officials use the phrase "offensive foul," and when we do, we are intending to describe a play in which the offense committed a foul. That the phrase "offensive foul" does not appear in a Fed or NCAA rulebook does not mitigate against its usefulness as a descriptive term, and I fail to see why you feel that attempting to correct someone on this point is an efficient use of time.

That said, I am indeed convinced that you DO consider it an efficient use of your time, and I will now cease and desist all attempts to convince you otherwise.

2 points to the Duke on the takedown.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I have made it a rule not to argue with you, Mark. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. But I just gotta say, I think you're really being way too serious here. Just way, way, way too serious.

Juulie:

1) I am not a pig, especially not a male chauvinistic one.

2) I am a pretty good singer.

3) I have never argued with you. I have always tried to have learned discussions with you concerning rules and mechanics, but it always seems that you get your knickers in a twist about something perceived slight that does not exist. You need to lighten up more.

4) As a published author (see your ariticles on correctable errors) and a person who runs a basketball officiating camp you should value the use of correct terminology when discussing rules and mechanics. And I do not think I was being "way, way, way too serious" about using the correct language of our profession in this discussion. You should be promoting correct terminology when discussing plays, rules, and mechanics.

We, as officials want to be treated with respect by coaches and players. But that won't happen when we cannot even use the correct language of the rules of our sport when we discuss rules and mechanics among ourselves. As officials we are expected to pay attention to detail. The rules language is one area that we should always pay attention to detail.

Some officials are taking me to task for being nit picky because I am complaining about officials not using correct terminology when discussing the rules. But it is those officials that about whom I am complaining are the ones taking me to task.

I state again, that when I hear an official use incorrect terminology in discussing rules I immediately have doubts concerning his knowledge of the rules. I would feel the same way if an engineer or physicist used the word centrifugal instead of centripetal.

MTD, Sr.

[LarryS]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...we, as officials, do a diservice to the game when we do not use correct terminology.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 24th, 2006 at 03:34 PM] [/B]

Seems to me we would all be better served if we were more concerned about the officials who do a diservice to the game by officiating one.

After we correct all instances of that diservice maybe we can then work on terminology between fellow officials on a discussion board...where often we are simply concerned with setting up a situation in order to ask a simple question.

But that is just me...people say I'm weird