Would you have T ed ?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I now have no doubt you have outright lied when you answered my question about what levels you have officiated. I now have no doubt JR is absolutely correct when he says you do not have, or have even seen, an NFHS rule book.

I would not bet all my money on that.

Many actual officials can see through the facade, even inexperienced ones. Most of us that post on this forum try to help our avocation by teaching others less experienced than us. I still learn things from people more experienced than me. But we will continue to point out your obvious mis-statements and bad advice.

Do what you feel you have to do for the sake of others, but take some advise from me. Don't bet all your money on what JR thinks. I'm going to continue to do what I feel is best for the sake of others too. Just remember one thing, you can't bullsh!it the bullsh!itter.

You certainly have a right to your opinion. Likewise, we have a right to ours. If you don't like it, feel free to go elsewhere.

Perhaps the only thing you have stated on this discussion that is worth reading. Perhaps you should take your own advice and simply not respond if it's something you don't like instead of playing the hate card. Teaching people to hate others that share a different opinion is bad for the world that we share and must all live in.

Btw, who the hell cares if I know about Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes?

You do, since you mentioned it. Quit hating so much, life is too short. Now repeat after me, it's not all about me, again, it's not all about me. It's about the players and the game, but it's not all about me!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by worldbefree

Old School is most likely a "real official". That doesn't mean he has to be a good official or even know what he is talking about. He is the type of official he always talks about not wanting to work with again. Only in this case you wouldn't want to work with him the first time. Let's also be clear that just because an official owns a rule book, doesn't mean they understand what is in it. We have all worked with guys who have been around long enough that they "know" the game, and don't need the book. And there are also those officials who can't quite conprehend what the rule book says. The book only gives you the rules, it doesn't go out on the floor with you and help you apply them. So with that, we should allow Old School to say he's a "real official" but all hope that none of us ever has to work with him.

You almost had a real good post here. If you could take out the personal attacks, which BTW, is what we are supposed to do as officials, that is not take sides, being neutral. You guys have shown that you don't have what it takes internally to be a true official. On the outside you are fine, but on the inside, you lack what it takes. Your persistence to want to put me down, make me look bad in the eyes of others, the propaganda, is well beyond the art of officiating. IMHO, good officials, true officials do not engage in such personal attacks on each other.

[deecee]

i havent seen any personal attacks -- what I have seen is a very good, clear and concise debuffing of ones apparent credentials or lack thereof.

[Adam]

Apparently, a thorough disagreement and debunking is a personal attack.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

I would not bet all my money on that.

Again, still no direct answer, just BS.

Yes or no: Do you currently have the rule book and case book?

Originally Posted by Old School

Just remember one thing, you can't bullsh!it the bullsh!itter.

What does this mean? Lay it out for me, since sometimes I might be a little dense. Who's doing the bullsh!tting, and who is the bullsh1tter in this conversation?

Originally Posted by Old School

Perhaps the only thing you have stated on this discussion that is worth reading. Perhaps you should take your own advice and simply not respond if it's something you don't like instead of playing the hate card. Teaching people to hate others that share a different opinion is bad for the world that we share and must all live in.

Interesting. The only person talking about hate is you. I really don't hate you. Do you hate me, and others? Is that why you are bringing up hate?

I (and others) will certainly point out when we disagree with one of your posts. And we will also point out when you are factually wrong. And, in all cases, it has nothing to do with hate, it has to do expressing our opinions and pointing out facts. And, most importantly, it really is about the players. However, if you keep avoiding questions and posting bad advice, it just shows it's only about you, right?

[tmp44]

I'm on my 180th bag of popcorn regarding this thread....anyone have any Pepsi so I can wash it down?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Again, still no direct answer, just BS. Yes or no: Do you currently have the rule book and case book?

What is with you and this rulebook? Give it a rest. I'm okay with whatever you think or believe about me and the rulebooks, plus I have already answered this question.

What does this mean? Lay it out for me, since sometimes I might be a little dense. Who's doing the bullsh!tting, and who is the bullsh1tter in this conversation?

That is for you to figure out, however, I will leave you with this. I don't care whether you have a rulebook or not. I don't base my decision to like you or dislike you based on the fact that you have a rulebook or not. Now, who is BS'ing who?

Interesting. The only person talking about hate is you. I really don't hate you. Do you hate me, and others? Is that why you are bringing up hate?

I hate no one, but there must be something in the Kool-Aid around here when you think your actions, are beyond reproach, or better stated, your sh!it don't sink.

I (and others) will certainly point out when we disagree with one of your posts. And we will also point out when you are factually wrong. And, in all cases, it has nothing to do with hate, it has to do expressing our opinions and pointing out facts. And, most importantly, it really is about the players.

Disagreeing and having your own opinion on a subject is perfectly okay with me. Just don't turn it personal. Be about the topic and leave the personal innuendo's to the haters, but don't be surprised if you fire off a round at me, and I return the fire.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

What is with you and this rulebook? Give it a rest. I'm okay with whatever you think or believe about me and the rulebooks, plus I have already answered this question.

I am so sorry I missed that answer.

What was the answer again?

Originally Posted by Old School

Now, who is BS'ing who?

That's becoming more and more obvious with each post.

[deecee]

Disagreeing and having your own opinion on a subject is perfectly okay with me. Just don't turn it personal. Be about the topic and leave the personal innuendo's to the haters, but don't be surprised if you fire off a round at me, and I return the fire.

rules and citations arent opinions -- you are more wrong with rules than I am and your interpretations are really off as well -- there is not right or wrong when it comes to rules there is only right. you seem to miss that fact. you get rules wrong -- someone on here points that out -- you take that as a personal attack against your opinions. thats your problem not ours. as far as you owning a rulebook -- I dont care and I think I know the answer to it.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by deecee

rules and citations arent opinions -- you are more wrong with rules than I am and your interpretations are really off as well -- there is not right or wrong when it comes to rules there is only right. you seem to miss that fact. you get rules wrong -- someone on here points that out -- you take that as a personal attack against your opinions. thats your problem not ours. as far as you owning a rulebook -- I dont care and I think I know the answer to it.

Sometimes we can be our own worse enemy's. There is no right or wrong when it comes to rules, there is only right! What the hell! We're talking about officiating basketball here, not building a rocket ship. Please show me where someone pointed out a rule to me and I took it personal, and I will point out to you where the hidden insult was everytime, because that is truly what you are missing. Like I said, you think your sh!t don't stink. In the real world, everybody's sh!t stinks.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Old School

What is with you and this rulebook? Give it a rest. I'm okay with whatever you think or believe about me and the rulebooks, plus I have already answered this question..

I read each post diligently and I never saw where you answered the question. If you will give me the courtesy of replying directly with a yes or no answer it would be appreciated.

My decision would be to T the coach. For that I cite the following NF Rules.

Rule 10-4-1a Disrespectfully addressing an official. I think this is quite evident and does not take into account the "emotional state" of the coach as to whether he has violated this rule or not. He just DID.

You could also argue that the coach has also violated Rules 10-4-1b,e,& f.

With me the rule book is my authority (Rule 4-39-1)for any action I employ to keep the game so neither team gets an unfair advantage (2005-2007 Officials manual pg4). The rule book say rules are created to create a balance of play (pg 10: The intent and purpose of rules).

Additionally in the 2nd paragraph on page 10 of the Rules book is states: Therefore it is important ot know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation.

I realize as officials we are called upon to offer interpretations of difficult plays but when giving mine I also show the authority to which I base my conclusions on AND give that authority due credit. By the way, I never consider Daryl H. Long to be the Authority nor do I ever give him credit.

My authority is the rule book pertinent to the level or code the game is being played under.

"T" or not? The authority supports my action in this sitch to say yes.

OS: other than your own gut feeling by what authority did you base your answer to say no to the "T"?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

My authority is the rule book pertinent to the level or code the game is being played under.

"T" or not? The authority supports my action in this sitch to say yes.

OS: other than your own gut feeling by what authority did you base your answer to say no to the "T"?

I already answered that Daryl. If you have read all the way to this point, you should certainly understand why I choose not to enforce the T. What authority can I attribute it too? My authority as the official for the game. It is my judgment, I reason it to be an emotional knee-jerk reaction from the coach and not meant as an attack on my integrity.

When the book talks about judgment and balance of fair play, and it also talks about its important to understand the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied and/or called by the official. Most of the people out here say it's intelligent to immedately give the coach a T. I think I am the only one here that thinks it's intelligent to walk away so that I can not hear the coaches comment. Preventive officiating. To me, the integrity of a good game that I just got to work means more to me than the coaches kneejerk comments about his hurt player. To me, if these words upset you that much that you would enforce the T in a one-point game with 24 seconds left on the clock, imo, you are not ready to officiate upper level basketball. Maybe this field is not for you. Maybe you just don't have what it takes to succeed at this because I'm here to tell you, it gets much worse than that!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

What authority can I attribute it too? My authority as the official for the game.

To me, if these words upset you that much that you would enforce the T in a one-point game with 24 seconds left on the clock, imo, you are not ready to officiate upper level basketball. Maybe this field is not for you. Maybe you just don't have what it takes to succeed at this because I'm here to tell you, it gets much worse than that!

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

I already answered that Daryl. If you have read all the way to this point, you should certainly understand why I choose not to enforce the T. What authority can I attribute it too? My authority as the official for the game. It is my judgment, I reason it to be an emotional knee-jerk reaction from the coach and not meant as an attack on my integrity.

When the book talks about judgment and balance of fair play, and it also talks about its important to understand the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied and/or called by the official. Most of the people out here say it's intelligent to immedately give the coach a T. I think I am the only one here that thinks it's intelligent to walk away so that I can not hear the coaches comment. Preventive officiating. To me, the integrity of a good game that I just got to work means more to me than the coaches kneejerk comments about his hurt player. To me, if these words upset you that much that you would enforce the T in a one-point game with 24 seconds left on the clock, imo, you are not ready to officiate upper level basketball. Maybe this field is not for you. Maybe you just don't have what it takes to succeed at this because I'm here to tell you, it gets much worse than that!

OS, I'm sure there are going to be somebody if not many who will breakdown and comment on every sentence in your post, but I'm one to agree with you and your philosophy in this situation.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Old School

I already answered that Daryl. If you have read all the way to this point, you should certainly understand why I choose not to enforce the T. What authority can I attribute it too? My authority as the official for the game. It is my judgment, I reason it to be an emotional knee-jerk reaction from the coach and not meant as an attack on my integrity.

When the book talks about judgment and balance of fair play, and it also talks about its important to understand the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied and/or called by the official. Most of the people out here say it's intelligent to immedately give the coach a T. I think I am the only one here that thinks it's intelligent to walk away so that I can not hear the coaches comment. Preventive officiating. To me, the integrity of a good game that I just got to work means more to me than the coaches kneejerk comments about his hurt player.

I respect the part when you say you do not think it is an attack on your integrity. I am having a hard time comprehending why not. So far your defense for no "T" is 1.) he score of the game is close, 2.) you did not wish to penalize the kids for the actions of their coach, 3.) emotional outbursts by coaches are a part of the game and need to be ignored if we wish to advance to higher levels, or 4.) you did not think coach's comments attacked your integrity. At least those kept your reasoning within the realm of basketball. You lost your argument (not respect) with me when you first did not think how your lack of applying Rule 10-4-1a affects the other team and secondly you started to bring in outrageous analogies.

At question is the behavior of a individual involved in the game and we have pointed out rules that prohibit the very behavior in question. That most of the posters think it is intelligent to immediately give the "T" is not an anomoly of a local officials association. It represents the collective intelligence of many who base their decision on the authority not themselves. When the same decision is reached by those who are neither bound by geography nor level of officiating, that is the ultimate in integrity. And the integrity of the game is maintained by not depriving the other team from the chance to score points to win the game as a consequence of the other coach's actions.

I would be interested to know why you think the integrity of the game is maintained depriving the other team of merited free throws.