Afaik, the only one arguing that it was a guess is Old Sh!thead himself - then he argues that it should be a block and tries to justify that answer by screwing up the rulebook (at least this thread got him to actually opeh his rulebook)...then he accuses all who disagree with him of thinking they are bigger than the game...enough is enough...he needs to stfu and go away.

Old School:

Read what Snagwells wrote right after your last post. He points out your problem. Everybody agrees that this was a bang-bang play, the problem is that you insist on applying your rules rather than the rules of basketball to dertermine what is a block and what is a charge. You keep saying that the secondary defender is being given an advantage over the dribbler by not having to give time and distance to obtain/establish a legal guarding position, well that is just too bad. I have given you a history lesson as to why time and distance does not matter in this situation but you inssist on telling everybody that you do not care about applying the rules correctly and that you are going to apply them the way you want to apply them. That tells us one thing, and that it is about YOU and only YOU. Once again, stop officaiting basketball, you are doing a great disservice to the game if you continue to do so.

MTD, Sr.

Old School:

You can not have a tie, either the defender had a legal guarding position before the contact or he did not. If he did have a LGP then the offensive player is resposible for the contact. NFHS R2-S27-A2 does not apply if the defender has a LGP because he is entitled to his position on the court all of the way up to the ceiling. See Principal of Verticality in the rules book, also learn about a player's Cylinder of Veriticality

MTD, Sr.

Snaqwells:

I know that about a month or two ago somebody started a thread about whether I was still alive or not. To be honest, there really has not been anything weird in this season to get my heart pumping until Old School came along in this thread. He as over 400 posts but this is the first time I have seen him in the Basketball Forum. Daryl "The Preacher" Long and I have discussed Old School's lack of basketball rules knowledge.

The one thing I have not done in this thread is quote specific rules and casebook/A.R. plays and I would like to thank everybody (you, JR, Rich, Cameron, etc., if I left anybody out, you know who you are) for doing a great job of quoting the appropriate rules.

This thread has been mixed emotions: like watching your mother-in-law drive over a cliff in your brand new Cadillac.

MTD, Sr.

ROFLMAO!!!

?????
 

From Old School: "You moron".

From Billy Mac: "He was right. I was wrong".

Old School: I admitted that I was wrong. That makes me a "moron"? When my colleague at work straightened me out regarding the "tie" rule in baseball, he didn't call me a "moron". I hope that as long as I continue to post on this Forum, that I will continue to be patient with those who respectfully disagree with me, treat others like I would like to be treated, otherwise known as the "Golden Rule", and that I never have to resort to name calling, whether I believe that I'm right, or whether I believe that I'm wrong. After over 250 posts on this Forum, including some heated "debates" with Jurassic Referee, the "king of the great debaters", I don't believe that I've ever resorted to calling a fellow Forum member, including not only brother and sister officials, but also including coaches and fans on this Forum, a name. I guess that your "Old School" philosophy doesn't include being polite. My parents raised me to always be polite, even to people that I disagree with.

You're welcome!

I'm not feeling this statement here. Hope everything is alright.

However, one good lesson deserves another. One of the problem I have with your way of interpreting this rule is that it doesn't stand up to criterism. If I'm driving down the road, and all of a sudden a deer runs out in front of my car. Bamm! I hit the deer, and next you thing you know, the law enforcers comes and tells me, it's my fault. The deer was there first! My point is this, I didn't have enough time to stop. The closest the rulebook comes in a situation like this is incident contact! A foul should not be called even though the contact is severe. In your world, I go to jail, pay fine for hitting the deer. In my world, it's incidental contact, we'll mop the deer up, count the bucket or shoot 2 free throws. And last and the true point of story that you may not get. The deer is dead, and so is the defender, got there too late buddy. Give me one more second, I'm locking 'em up, moving to avoid. One more second, I got a set defender, offensive foul. Easy call to make.

My way stands up to criterism, your way stands up to dumb. Do as I say and don't ask questions. Here, just drink this kool-aid. Your way doesn't take into account the offensive player, only one thing, did the defender get set, yes, offense! To me, that's dumb. I'm not officiating dumb. When officiating reaches a point where I can't intelligently apply the rules combined with my own fair judgment of what I thought just happened. Then I truly will be done officiating. Oh and BTW, intelligently applying the rules in a fair and consistent manner, is in the rulebook.

Damn I'm good!

Ever hear of a concept called "referee the defense?" That's what most non-rec league officials do, and it's how you don't screw up these types of calls. You watch the entire play from the defensive player. If the offense player then decides to throw an elbow or dip the shoulder, you can easily see it when it hits the defensive player. But yet, again, you decide to buck against the norm, or as you call it, the "kool-aid," and misapply well known officiating methods.

By the way, my favorite "kool-aid" flavor is lemonade...what about you guys? :p

Dates, times, locations, please.

And yet another tie for the dumbest post ever made on this forum....

Hey everybody:

Here is what Old School says about himself: "Damn I'm good!" And yet he keeps telling all of us that it is about us and not the players and the game. I sure would like to know what he is mixing in with you Kool-Aide.

MTD, Sr.

Time to shut 'er down. For good.

You have a new Cadillac?

Must fess up that it was me who inquired.

Not if you are watching his feet which is what you have to watch to see if he is set. Owe and there's just one little flaw in your analogy, actually there's way more than that but for now we will just focus on this one. What if the offensive player is already airborn? If you are just watching the defense, you would never know!

Just give it a rest. I have been doing this way too long for these little BS points you keep coming up with. I'm okay with you calling an offensive foul here. I'm not okay with you saying just referee the defense. That's wrong! Game deciding situation, I'm taking everything into consideration. One reason, just one small reason that if you used the other side of your brain, you might just realize. What if the replay clearly showed the offensive player airborn and you got an offensive foul? Do you realize how close you where to having just that happen here! A split-second! You would have never saw it if you are focus on the defender. The tape don't lie either! Game deciding situation, I'm the Lead, I'm watching the play. I ain't watching nobody feet here. Waist up! IMHO....

In deference to those who are ignoring the great prevaricator, I'm not going to quote him while I dismantle his newest line of bovine excrement.

First of all, what in the he!! is a "criterism?" I thought it was a typo, given your track record, but you used it twice.

Secondly, the analogy is poorly derived for two reasons. First of all, ball handlers aren't moving 55 mph (that's 88 kph for those of you north of the border and across the pond). Second of all, ball handlers are expected to not get so out of control that they can't alter their direction to avoid a player who was there before they left the ground. This may well be your third-worst analogy (behind the "medal of honor" and one other I'll not mention in polite company) since joining our happy enclave.

You cannot base your opinion on whether a defender is set on how much time is involved. The defender has no legal obligation. He's met the requirements of the rules, and you're going to take that away from him because you're afraid to make the tough call. Not only that, but you want to try to tell us the rules shouldn't be applied because it doesn't look or feel right to you. It's gutless.

The other problem with your thoughts is that the rule does take the offense into account. The defender has to be in position before the offensive player leaves the floor. That's right, both players are taken into account. If you don't like bang-bang plays, sit in the stands and yell at the refs.

Finally, in order to "intelligently apply" the rules, you need to know them. The key verb here is "apply." You can't intelligently apply anything if you refuse to acknowledge it.