The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 03:06pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Referee Magazine - November 2006

In the NASO Edition of Referee Magazine, page N14, the "Disqualified Player" situation. Is it just me, or is the Ruling incorrect?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 03:40pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Cool

Some of us subscribe only to "Chicks And Ammo", so what does the NASO mag say?
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 04:30pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Play: A1 commits a personal foul against B2 during B2's unsuccessful try for goal. Following the foul, but prior to free throws being shot, A1 and B2 exchange words and are assessed double technical fouls for unsporting behavior. A1 has foul personal fouls prior to the technical foul being called. How is the play resumed?

Ruling: The technical foul against A1 is a direct technical foul, and this counts toward A1's five personal fouls. A1 is immediately disqualified and is not allowed to shoot the free throws resulting from B2's personal foul. Any team A substitute shall shoot the two feel throws for A1. The double technical fouls are offsetting, and no free throws are shot for the technical fouls. In NFHS, the foul are penalized in the order they occured. A1's substitute will attempt the two free throws for B2's original personal foul with no players on the lane line. An alternating possession throw-in will then be made at the division line opposite table.


So it appears they totally confused A1 and B2. A1 committed the original foul, thus B2 should be shooting free throws. In the situation, it states prior to free throws being shot, which suggests B2 was in the act of shooting when he was fouled.

However, in their last statement, they state they are using the AP at the division line opposite table. Why are they using this? If the technicals canceled each other out (which they did), why wouldn't the POI be the free throws per 4-36-2b?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 04:44pm
Aleve Titles to Others
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Westchester of the Southern Conference
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via AIM to 26 Year Gap
It would seem that they did get confused and the lane should not be cleared in this case.
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 05:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
In the NASO Edition of Referee Magazine, page N14, the "Disqualified Player" situation. Is it just me, or is the Ruling incorrect?
Congratulations. You found the mistake in this month's edition. Keep playing next month to see what RefMag screws up.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 07:37pm
Aleve Titles to Others
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Westchester of the Southern Conference
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via AIM to 26 Year Gap
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Congratulations. You found the mistake in this month's edition. Keep playing next month to see what RefMag screws up.
Maybe an OC ad that claims great service?
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 09:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
In the NASO Edition of Referee Magazine, page N14, the "Disqualified Player" situation. Is it just me, or is the Ruling incorrect?
There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 01:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.
I've not subscribed to it recently but when I did it has extra pages in the middle in the NASO version. They were a different color and easily identifiable. The rest of the magazine was the same.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 01:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.
Back when I subscribed, for 2 months of the year they sent us the NASO edition as a trial. The only advantage that NASO has is the insurance. I didn't find the NASO inset useful.
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 03:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by ref18
I didn't find the NASO inset useful.
How could you, if it provides rulings such as stated by Tanner, which are two years out of date?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:22am
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by ref18
Back when I subscribed, for 2 months of the year they sent us the NASO edition as a trial. The only advantage that NASO has is the insurance. I didn't find the NASO inset useful.
I usually don't get the NASO edition. As ref18 stated, they do these trial runs and that why I got it.

But yeah, they weren't even close on the ruling... wow!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
I usually don't get the NASO edition. As ref18 stated, they do these trial runs and that why I got it.

But yeah, they weren't even close on the ruling... wow!
That might explain it. They may have just been sending you an old example of what the NASO insert looks like. Those could have been leftovers from prior issues a couple of years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:30am
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
That might explain it. They may have just been sending you an old example of what the NASO insert looks like. Those could have been leftovers from prior issues a couple of years ago.
Hmm, I don't know. It'd seem like a lot of extra work. Plus the very first page (N1) says "November 2006 Report." Looks like they just really messed it up.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Ok, now I'm reduced to surmising that they prepared this play ruling a while back and just got around to using it now, but failed to check it against recent rule changes.

However the goof occurred, it is very sloppy on the editor's part.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 12:09pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
How could you, if it provides rulings such as stated by Tanner, which are two years out of date?
A lot of the articles that appear in the NASO inserts are archived articles from old (sometimes very old) Referee magazines.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
November Referee mag test Q#1 kentref Football 6 Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:58pm
Referee Magazine - July 2006 tjones1 Basketball 5 Tue Oct 03, 2006 09:26am
Referee magazine Aug 2006 Pg 36-37 jwwashburn Softball 5 Wed Aug 02, 2006 03:40pm
Referee Magazine... WhistlesAndStripes Basketball 0 Tue Dec 06, 2005 08:23pm
Referee Magazine APHP Basketball 9 Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:59pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1