Possible Double Standard

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is no double standard. The rules require a certain type of contact at one part of the floor that they do not with another part of the floor.

I think that is the definition of a double standard - two different rules depending upon a circumstance.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

I think that is the definition of a double standard - two different rules depending upon a circumstance.

The definition of a double standard is something being applied to two different groups or situations based on the same set of facts. A double standard is also considered unfair. I do not treat a rule that involves the ball handler and a rule that deals with a player without the ball as unfair. I guess you do have the right to your opinion, but not everyone has to agree with that opinion.

Peace

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The definition of a double standard is something being applied to two different groups or situations based on the same set of facts. A double standard is also considered unfair. I do not treat a rule that involves the ball handler and a rule that deals with a player without the ball as unfair. I guess you do have the right to your opinion, but not everyone has to agree with that opinion.

Peace

So in essence, your contention is that no double standard exists because you say so.

"A double standard, according to the World Book Dictionary, is a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another."

As in post players vs. ball handlers.

As a wise man once said, "It is interesting that he might think that way, but that does not mean he has a real point either. "

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

So in essence, your contention is that no double standard exists because you say so.

"A double standard, according to the World Book Dictionary, is a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another."

As in post players vs. ball handlers.

As a wise man once said, "It is interesting that he might think that way, but that does not mean he has a real point either. "

It says in the dictionary that I have read that a double standard is an "unfair situation." I do not see two different rules cover different aspects of the game as unfair. What is unfair is also a subjective term as well. So if you feel that there is a double standard, then feel there is a double standard. What difference does it make if you disagree with my point of view? I just do not put a lot of stock in some Dad that comes along and makes a comment.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

And its statements like that that make some officials look like a$$holes inthe eyes of people who actually know the game.

You don't have to put any stock in what someone else says but if anyone ever disagrees with your point of view then they sure hear about it on these forums.

Perhaps that is why, although I respect your experience and knowledge I really don't put much stock in what you have to say.

You are going to change something you do because some guy came up to you and made a statement in conversation? It is not like this conversation took place at a camp or you the conversation took place with a very experienced coach or official. Billy Packer and Bill Walton have a lot of experience and knowledge in the game too. I do not know if they said something to me I would change my officiating philosophy or try to call the game differently if I had a personal conversation with them.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

I think that is the definition of a double standard - two different rules depending upon a circumstance.

As far as how the words are used literally, I think you're right. But the way it's officiated this is often the case. I think where the contact occurs does make some difference in a lot of localities, and it also appears to me that it depends on whether the contact is on-ball, or off-ball. Is that a double standard? Well maybe, but in some areas, I'm sure it's the way things are called.