Those insignificant rules and mechanics and other such minutia

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, I think he was concerned by the R saying you almost had a problem. Nevada, I think, is indicating that the visitors had done their part and a T wouldn't have been called for because the visitors had supplied the book on time.
That said, taking care of it early (like your R did) prevents a problem; because even if you don't call a T in the end, you've still got a delayed game while the whole mess gets sorted out once V13 comes into the game.

OK Snaq, I see what you are saying. I was just trying to understand why Nevada felt I needed to educate my 'R' on anything.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Because I've seen it many times where the two jumpers initially miss the ball, but are able to hit it on a second swipe after returning to the floor and prior to the ball striking the floor.

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Oh, why didn't I think of that?

Let's go back and look...


Quote:


Oh yeah, that's why.

Any other 3rd world explanations you need to pull out of yerazz?

I'm still of the belief that the toss was legal. He had TWO different tosses, which his U1 called back because the jumpers missed the ball when they jumped up for the tap. Perhaps the U1 didn't even wait to see if they might hit it after landing.
I'd like BadNews to clarify. There are many officials who don't understand this properly.

My U1 did it to me on Friday night. A1 and B1 both swung and missed when going after the ball near its apex, but A1 hit it when it was at chest level.
Since we now had an IW, without team control or the AP arrow established, I did the only thing that I could. I tossed it again.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:



I'm still of the belief that the toss was legal. He had TWO different tosses, which his U1 called back because the jumpers missed the ball when they jumped up for the tap. Perhaps the U1 didn't even wait to see if they might hit it after landing.
I'd like BadNews to clarify. There are many officials who don't understand this properly.

My U1 did it to me on Friday night. A1 and B1 both swung and missed when going after the ball near its apex, but A1 hit it when it was at chest level.
Since we now had an IW, without team control or the AP arrow established, I did the only thing that I could. I tossed it again.

Nevada, I see you are trying to show off your HTML skills.

Let me clarify the situation:

• 1st jump: Both jumpers missed the ball at its apex and then the ball hit hit both jumpers and landed in the circle.

• 2nd jump: Both jumpers missed the ball at its apex and this time the ball came down to earth without contacting either jumper.

But, IREFU2 was the U2 for this scenario, maybe he can jump in and give a better or more accurate description. I could be missing something.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Let me clarify the situation:

• 1st jump: Both jumpers missed the ball at its apex and then the ball hit hit both jumpers and landed in the circle.

• 2nd jump: Both jumpers missed the ball at its apex and this time the ball came down to earth without contacting either jumper.

I could be missing something.

No, you're not missing a damn thing and you know it.

The ball has to be touched BY one of the jumpers in order to have a legal jump. Rule 6-3-6. If the ball just touches one of the jumper's body instead, then it's not a legal jump. Your original post very clearly said anyway that both jumpers missed the ball both times. You and your partner were completely right, by rule, to re-jump both times.

Lah me, Nevada, I know you were trying to make a point re: what constitutes a legal jump, but you sureasheck are going about it the wrong way. You shoulda thrown in a "what if" to make your point. News and his partner had the right call both times.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Newport News and Hampton both provide at least 2 armed policepersons (hi Juulie) at every public HS game within their city limits. But they've never escorted any of my crews out before last night. I believe it occurred this time b/c the school with the ejected fan has been involved in 2 off-court incidents this season (neither of these 2 events involved players or coaches).

Hey Badnews, you had your girl to protect you!!!!! As far as for me, I kept getting stopped by good looking women wanting to chat!!!!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:



I'm still of the belief that the toss was legal. He had TWO different tosses, which his U1 called back because the jumpers missed the ball when they jumped up for the tap. Perhaps the U1 didn't even wait to see if they might hit it after landing.

...and perhaps the gym floor opened up and swallowed the jumpers before either had a chance to touch the jump.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Nevada, I see you are trying to show off your HTML skills.

Let me clarify the situation:

• 1st jump: Both jumpers missed the ball at its apex and then the ball hit hit both jumpers and landed in the circle.

• 2nd jump: Both jumpers missed the ball at its apex and this time the ball came down to earth without contacting either jumper.

But, IREFU2 was the U2 for this scenario, maybe he can jump in and give a better or more accurate description. I could be missing something.

Both Jumpers just missed the ball and the U1 blew it back for a rejump. Both kid were extremely tall and should have gotten the tip with no problem. It was a great toss!!!!

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rule 6-3-6. If the ball just touches one of the jumper's body instead, then it's not a legal jump.

What part of 6-3-6, or 6-3-anything does this violate?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

What part of 6-3-6, or 6-3-anything does this violate?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The ball has to be touched BY one of the jumpers in order to have a legal jump. Rule 6-3-6. If the ball just touches one of the jumper's body instead, then it's not a legal jump. Your original post very clearly said anyway that both jumpers missed the ball both times. You and your partner were completely right, by rule, to re-jump both times.

6-3-6 ...The tossed ball must be touched by one or both of the jumpers after it reaches its highest point. If the ball contacts the floor without being touched by at least one of the jumpers, the referee shall toss it again.

JR is completely correct. He is making the point that the rule says the jumper must touch the ball for the jump to be legal. This is a positive action by the player. It is not enough for the ball to contact the jumper. That would be a passive action by the player. If the NFHS had wanted the second case to be legal, they would have written "touching or being touched by" as is the case in 4-42-5.
I agree with his point, but still stand by mine that many officials misunderstand this requirement. They wrongly believe that one of the jumpers must contact the ball cleanly when they go up for it.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Lah me, Nevada, I know you were trying to make a point re: what constitutes a legal jump, but you sureasheck are going about it the wrong way. You shoulda thrown in a "what if" to make your point. News and his partner had the right call both times.

Let's go back and look at exactly what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

(Why did your U1 call back either toss? Unless the ball strikes the floor without either jumper touching it, it is a legal toss and the game should continue. Ugly does not equate to illegal.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement. It does not need a "what if."

Lah you.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

6-3-6 ...The tossed ball must be touched by one or both of the jumpers after it reaches its highest point. If the ball contacts the floor without being touched by at least one of the jumpers, the referee shall toss it again.

JR is completely correct. He is making the point that the rule says the jumper must touch the ball for the jump to be legal. This is a positive action by the player. It is not enough for the ball to contact the jumper. That would be a passive action by the player. If the NFHS had wanted the second case to be legal, they would have written "touching or being touched by" as is the case in 4-42-5.

Gotcha. Thank you.

[blindzebra]

So let me get this straight.

Nevada makes a what if post...3rd world play if you prefer...and that is more troublesome, disrupts the thread and forum more so, than the constant "Shut ups," rodents with large sacks, grammar police and all the other non-basketball related nonsense that goes on?

Time to look in the mirror and self-police yourselves for a change, gotta love the hypocrisy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

So let me get this straight.

Nevada makes a what if post...3rd world play if you prefer...and that is more troublesome, disrupts the thread and forum more so, than the constant "Shut ups," rodents with large sacks, grammar police and all the other non-basketball related nonsense that goes on?

Time to look in the mirror and self-police yourselves for a change, gotta love the hypocrisy.

I got an idea,BZ. Leave all that up to the mods. That's their job. Nobody has appointed you a mod ...or the Moral Policeman of the Forum either as far as I know.

Iffen you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

6-3-6 ...The tossed ball must be touched by one or both of the jumpers after it reaches its highest point. If the ball contacts the floor without being touched by at least one of the jumpers, the referee shall toss it again.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement. It does not need a "what if."

Lah you.

Lah me....

Yes, Nevada, let's go back....

News wrote-- "I'm the 'R' and U1 has to call my first 2 tosses back b/c I out-tossed the the 6'7" and 6'5" jumpers and they completely missed the ball both times."

You wrote-- "Why did your U1 call back either toss? Unless the ball strikes the floor without either jumper touching it, it is a legal toss and the game should continue."

Stevie Wonder could see what was wrong with your statement. News said that both jumpers missed the ball, so they had to re-toss. You basically then also said that if the jumpers didn't touch the ball, it should be re-tossed too. All you did was mimic News. You agreed with him. Why try to "tsk, tsk" him then? That makes no sense.