Except, except, except...

[rainmaker]

Has anyone studied item in the case book under 10-1-8 "A Specific Unsportsmanlike Play"? How bizarre can these people get in their exceptions and variations? Isn't this worse than the infield fly rule? Has anyone out there in Refland ever invoked Case 10-1-8?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Has anyone studied item in the case book under 10-1-8 "A Specific Unsportsmanlike Play"? Has anyone out there in Refland ever invoked Case 10-1-8?

I've never had it happen but I can imagine it happening at lower levels of play.

How bizarre can these people get in their exceptions and variations?

I have to disagree with you there. Have you read some of the bizarre plays that people post on this and other boards? Then we try to pick apart the rule book to find a rule that fits the situation. That's the reason such case plays are in the book. Somewhere, sometime, that exact play has happened and there was a big stink (am I permitted to say that word ) about it.

Isn't this worse than the infield fly rule?

What's wrong with the infield fly rule?

[Tim Roden]

read the note. In most cases, this would not be called a technical foul because it would not be a deliberate act. Only the deliberate act to delay the game by this procedure would result in the T.

As to how bezarre this play is. The reason this play is in the book is someone had it and had to ask someone who asked someone who was on the committee. They considered it and put the situation in the case book. The purpose of the rule book and the case book is so that we know what to do when we can't figure out what to do from common sense. Since there are some officials without common sense, we have to write down everything we can think of for the case book.

[Camron Rust]

Furthermore, it probably got in the book not just because the rules committee was asked about it but because some team(s) were regularly attempting. I suspect they were hoping to catch the officials and the other team asleep to get an extra 2 points. To only cancel the action would not discourage the act and the only other penalty to be added would be a T.

[rainmaker]

I don't think it's bizarre as a play. I think the handling of it is bizarre, and it seems contradictory to everything else. I'm not disagreeing with it, or saying that's it's wrong, but I don't understand why we cancel everythingthat happened, including putting time back on the clock, in this one case only. What makes this different from other screw-ups and errors?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I don't think it's bizarre as a play. I think the handling of it is bizarre, and it seems contradictory to everything else. I'm not disagreeing with it, or saying that's it's wrong, but I don't understand why we cancel everythingthat happened, including putting time back on the clock, in this one case only. What makes this different from other screw-ups and errors?

Because this isn't an official's mistake. In cases where we allow the wrong player to shoot a FT, administer a throw-in to the wrong team, or allow teams to go the wrong direction, we have made the mistake. In this situation, no mistake has been made by an official. Therefore, a procedure has to be established to handle it. Think about it. If this procedure wasn't established, each time a team scored they could grab the ball, inbound it and score, over and over again.

And again, what's wrong with the infield fly rule?

[Oz Referee]

What is the rule that we're talking about? (for those of us that don't have NF rule books)

[BktBallRef]

A SPECIFIC UNSPORTSMANLIKE ACT
10.1.8. Play: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, or following a time-out in this situation, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket. Ruling: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins.
a. Charge Team A with a technical foul.
b. Cancel the field goal.
c. Cancel any common foul(s) committed and any nonflagrant foul against A2 in the act of shooting.
d. Put "consumed" time back on the clock.
Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, especially after a time-out, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball.

[Oz Referee]

Thanks for that.

Has anybody actually seen this happen?

I couldn't imagine that it would be a very common occurance, especially on purpose.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If this procedure wasn't established, each time a team scored they could grab the ball, inbound it and score, over and over again.

Are you serious? Would you really let this happen if this wasn't in the case book? Of course not. If you felt they were doing it on purpose, you would call a T every time they tried to do it before they got anywhere near scoring.

And again, what's wrong with the infield fly rule?

Nothing that I know. In fact, in my family, it is a tradition to recite the rule to all newborn babies (this is true). We are a baseball lovin' tribe.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Are you serious? Would you really let this happen if this wasn't in the case book? Of course not. If you felt they were doing it on purpose, you would call a T every time they tried to do it before they got anywhere near scoring.

I didn't say I would let it happen. I said it could happen. The documentation is in the book for that purpose. If I'm so wrong, why don't you tell us what the purpose of the play is Mr. Smarty Britches?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Originally posted by BktBallRef
And again, what's wrong with the infield fly rule?

Nothing that I know. In fact, in my family, it is a tradition to recite the rule to all newborn babies (this is true). We are a baseball lovin' tribe.

That's for Juulie. She doesn't like the infield fly rule for some reason.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If this procedure wasn't established, each time a team scored they could grab the ball, inbound it and score, over and over again.

Originally posted by Mark PadgettAre you serious? Would you really let this happen if this wasn't in the case book? Of course not. If you felt they were doing it on purpose, you would call a T every time they tried to do it before they got anywhere near scoring.

Originally posted by BktBallRefI didn't say I would let it happen. I said it could happen. The documentation is in the book for that purpose. If I'm so wrong, why don't you tell us what the purpose of the play is Mr. Smarty Britches?

The purpose of the play is irrelevent as to why it's in the casebook. The reason it's in there is because someone on the NF rules committee had it happen in a game and didn't know what to do, so he made up a specific penalty in case it happened to him again, so he could say "AHA, Gotcha". This is how most cases get into the book.

Originally posted by BktBallRef That's for Juulie. She doesn't like the infield fly rule for some reason.

Personally, I think it's easier to understand than the correctible error litany. Next time I see Juulie, I'll explain the infield fly rule to her, with pictures and everything!

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Jul 6th, 2001 at 04:05 PM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Personally, I think it's easier to understand than the correctible error litany. Next time I see Juulie, I'll explain the infield fly rule to her, with pictures and everything!

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Jul 6th, 2001 at 04:05 PM]

In my family, the infield-fly-rule is used as the ultimate metaphor for something complicated, arcane and difficult to explain. That's only because no one in my family ever knew Mark Padgett. I'm sure, the next time I see Mark, it will all be crystal clear. And then what will my family discuss over the turkey? I suppose we'll choose some tax-deduction as the new metaphor.

About rule 10.1.8, Thanks for typing it out, Tony. I neglected to consider that some on this board would be at a disadvantage without the text written out. I see what you mean about it not being a referee error, but what about other times when the "mistake" is a player problem, like...

okay give me a day or two, here, I need to process.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker

In my family, the infield-fly-rule is used as the ultimate metaphor for something complicated, arcane and difficult to explain. That's only because no one in my family ever knew Mark Padgett.

In my family, I am used as the ultimate metaphor for something complicated, arcane and difficult to explain

For those of you who are not familiar with the word arcane, it means secretive and/or esoteric.

For those of you who are not familiar with the word difficult,you must be a coach.

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

In my family, I am used as the ultimate metaphor for something complicated, arcane and difficult to explain

For those of you who are not familiar with the word arcane, it means secretive and/or esoteric.

For those of you who are not familiar with the word difficult,you must be a coach.

What does esoteric mean?