Okay, I see you're trying to twist me up here. This is still interesting reading on this play. Again, if you get to hung up on the detail of the rule itself, you will undoubtly miss the play. R4-11-2 states that:

If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These priviledges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

all well and good, but doesn't play a part in this play. The opponent didn't foul, the ballhandler did.....and really no one is trying to twist you up...you are like a windsock in a tornado LOL....

Unreal. You quote the rule, and still think when the shot motion started has any bearing on this call at all. LGP is required before the shooter becomes airborne; it is not required to be established before the shooter becomes a shooter. Absolutely unreal.

Every time he posts something - and I mean EVERY time - he proves what an a$$ he is...someone really seriously needs to yank his IP address off of here - he does nothing but try to screw people up with his gibberish...

Old School:

We all agree with you that A1 started his act of shooting when he picked up his dribble, but that still has nothing to do with when B2 obtained/established a legal guarding postion. Besides, you need to go read the definition of Continuous Motion, you will find it in Rule 4 of both the NFHS and NCAA rules books.

MTD, Sr.

Old School:

I was sure from the first time I saw the play. CHARGE!!

MTD, Sr.

Relax, take a deep breath, and repeat after me.
It's not all about me.
Repeat, it's not all about me...

Rule 4-27-5 does not agree with you here, imo.

Like I said, unreal. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Rule 4-27-5 is all about whether a foul is considered a shooting foul or not. Nowhere does it say that LGP must be established prior to the start of the shooting motion. The shooting motion can start as soon as the player picks up his dribble, which can be a step and a half before he becomes airborne. The rule you quote states what happens if the shooter is fouled. It doesn't say jack sh!t about how to determine whom the foul is on, or whether there's actually a foul.

If you try to go CHARGE, you don't have enough time and distance to make it, imo. NFHS 4-27-5.

What I mean here and I stated my position very clearly earlier in the thread. You don't have enough information by NFHS rules and standards. They want you to watch the feet of the defense to determine if he's set, which nobody at this point in the game is going to be watching anybody feet from the Lead position. You are suppose to watch from the waste up. Even if you determine that defense has LGP, how can you say honestly that the offensive player hasn't use that last step when we can barely determine from watching the damn tape afterwards. There's no way as an official at real time speed you can determine that on the offensive player. So you reason by watching the defense along, that the defender got set, charge, when you don't even know the status of the offense! This is a rulebook call, not a game time deicision call!

If your position is I don't care about the offense because I know the defense is set. That is not an intelligent decision. Again, this is a rulebook call. You have completely disregarded the offense in this play. By definition of the rules, we are supposed to create a balance of fair play. My position is simply this. The only defendable call the official can make here is a block. Anything else is a guess. We might as well remove rule 4-23-4b because you never looked at the offensive player to determine if this was true. There wasn't enough time.

Read rules 4-41 and 6-7-9EXCEPTION(c), you f***ing moron. That's the applicable rule. Also read casebook play 6.7SitE. In that play, continous motion applies to a shooter who never does leave his feet. A "try" starts when the ball comes to rest in a player's hands to start the shooting motion, <b>NOT</b> when he leaves his feet. And continuous motion has got dick-all to do with the call anyway.

You just don't understand the basic rules concepts needed to call plays like this.

I said I was gonna ignore this idiot for the rest of this thread, but he is just stoopid beyond belief. Old School, when it comes to stupidity, you've raised the bar beyond the reach of mere mortal idiots.

Rule 4-27-5 has got dick-all to do with the call.The applicable rule, already cited, is rule 4-23-4(a). Again, Goofball, that rule says "Guarding an opponent <b>with the ball</b> or a stationary opponent without the ball..<b>NO</b> time or distance is required to <b>obtain an initial legal position</b>."

You just don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, but that'll never stop you.

New to this conversation. RookieDude, GREAT FREAKING CALL! As has been stated, it could have gone either way, but you made the correct call.

Wow, OldSchool, you sir are a freaking dumba$$! I'll try this approach with you then since you are so opposed to watching the feet and only watch from the waist (notice the correct spelling of waist). BTW, how do you call a travel if you don't watch the feet? In any case, where did the contact occur on the defense? It looked to me like he took the contact right smack dab in the middle of the chest. Are you telling me that the defense was that fast that he came from out of position (where contact may have occured on the shoulder or arm if at all) and got that position after the shooter went airborn? I don't know of many, if any, NBA players that can move that quick let alone ANY high school player.

One other question for you, do you not ever get tape from your games? I know you only call rec ball, but figured you might get someone to come tape your championship experience. You've never made a call on the court and then asked someone else, that saw it live or on tape, what they thought of the call? It didn't sound at all like RookieDude was questioning whether he got the call right at the time, just what we thought about it.

Time and distance are not a factor when judging contacts involving the ball handler on the floor (which means not airborne). This is basic basketball, in all rule sets.

That's the same in Italy: officiate the defense is what we are taught and what I teach to young officials. During the whole game, of course. If you want to call correctly a block-charge situation, the only way is to see whether the defensive player has got LGP. Be it at the beginning of the game or at the end.
I guess you mean the waist, don't you? Why should we look there before being sure if the defense has LGP? Stay deep beyond the baseline and you'll see feet, waist and hands.
Well, RookieDude did see correctly. It is possible, after all. He had a good angle and a good position: great job.

You have to know about the offensive player: if he is airborne or not. Not difficult, if you learn how to correctly officiate the defense.
That's what the rules say: if the defensive player has obtained LGP before the offensive player, the latter is responsible for the contact.

If you really think it is impossible to judge that contact, consider officiating something else, maybe bridge, where the play is not so fast as in basketball.

We're talking a matter of a split second if the defender was set and offense was airborne. It's really easy for us to sit back and say after the fact, it was cleary this or that. In real time, you got to make a decision and according to the way they want you to decide, you can't process all that in the span of time you was given. If you watch one or the other and you end up with a bias call. You watch both of them and the only definitive answer you can come back with is a block or incidental contact. With the game in the balance, I'm watching both players. Not mad at you if you call a CHARGE, I just think you guessed at the CHARGE, but as we all have stated, it was the OP call to make and he made it, kudo's to him. I would rather him come out with a CHARGE then a no-call.

Good discussion.

Call a block, then; live happy and continue to afflict basketball games with your moronic theories. I don't know in the US, but here nobody says to look from the waist up during the last seconds of a game. And I don't believe they do in the US, either.

Please, continue also to write in this forum: you are an endless source of wrong interpretation of the rules. Very good for gathering negative examples to show during association meetings.

Incidental contact? Come on! Well, if you are that kind of official who hides himself during the last seconds of a tight game, then a no-call would be the ideal decision. I prefer officials who have the heart to call what happens on the floor. Perhaps making mistakes, but not hiding themselves.

Actually, yes - Jon Diebler ran by so quickly that he couldn't be seen on the camera. Knocked Gweggie Paulus right on his tuchus.

Ok, Il give it a try...
"It's not about Old School. It's not about Old School..."

Sorry, not working. You're still a stupid dumb-a$$...

I think OS is just saying things to play games. He's just trying to stir the pot, to get under our skin or something.

The detail of the rule itself is the only way to get the play right. So, let's quote the whole rule and see how it applies.
This rule is pretty clearly not applicable when trying to determine whether a foul has occurred or by whom it was committed. It only becomes applicable, according to the excruciatingly clear wording, when you have already determined that a foul has been committed by the defense. Anyone with the reading ability beyond a first grade student could see this.

I'll say it again. I think you're really smarter than this, but faith can only hold out against incontrovertable scientific evidence for so long.

It's amazing how many pages this thread decreased when I added Old School back to my Ignore list. ;)

Sigh...I know.

I guess I always hope people can be helped. Maybe that's not always the case.

Old School:

I decided to stop pussy footing around with you. I am going to ask you very politely to read everything that I write in this post because: This weekend is the YMCA Great Lakes Zone Swimming Championships at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. Our younger son is representing the Toledo YMCA Peguins Swim Club in to Boys' 14U relays and instead of sitting in the hotel hot tub with my lovely wife, I am going to devote a lot of time to this post teaching you about guarding and screening. Unfortunately, I do not have my NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA Rules Books with me, many of the pertinent Rules, Casebook, and Approved Rulings have been quoted. This post is going to be part history of the rules, part rules, part case book and approved rulings, and part mechanics. All things that you, personally, need to understand so that you can correctly apply the rules in guarding and screening situations.

1) The guarding and screening definitions in all three rules codes have been unchanged for over fifty years; not withstanding Barb Jacobs idiotic interpretation of the legal guarding postion with regards to the NCAA Women's Rules because like you she was not a basketball official (a former coach) and was comletely ignorant of the how and why a rule is written the way it is.

2) The National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (the predecessor the the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees adopted the current rules for guarding and screening over fifty years ago. The concept that an offensive player who is not airborne when he gains first gains control of the all, must expect to be guarded from the instant he gains control of the ball; in other words, the defensive player does not have to give time and distance when obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player in control of the ball as long as the offensive player was not airborne when he gained control of the ball. Time and distance only applies to guarding a offensive player without the ball or an offensive player who gains control of the ball while airborne. Time and distance also applies to all (My apologies to J. Dallas Shirley.) screening situations; it should be noted that screens can be set by all ten players on the court, i.e., the offensive player in control of the ball can set a screen against a defensive player and a defensive player can set a screen against an offensive player (including the offensive player in control of the ball).

3) Closesly guarded situations have nothing to do with obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position.

4) I repeat: Time and distance does NOT apply when obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player who is not airborne when he gains control of the ball.

5) The Act of Shooting and Continuous Motion have nothing to do with obtaining/establishing a legal guarding postition.

6) I repeat: Time and distance does NOT apply when obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player who is not airborne when he gains control of the ball.

7) Good officials officiate the defense. Yes, the Lead in a three-whistle officiating crew will normally be watching the offensive player with the ball from the waist up when that player is in the low post, it is wrong to say the the Lead must always watch the offensive player from the waist up to the exclusion of watching the whole play. In the play being discussed, the drive started in the Trails' primary, but the secondary defender was the Lead's resonsibiity and should be able to see both the offensive and defensive players in order to make this block/charge call. A good official develops the ablility to have to V's of vision: a vertical vision and a horizontal vision.

8) I repeat: Time and distance does NOT apply when obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player who is not airborne when he gains control of the ball.

9) In conversations with you you admitted that your posts revealed your rules knowledge was lacking but that should not equate to lack of ability. I have this to say to you: One may know the rules and casebook forwards and backwards and that person still may not have the ability to apply that knowlege on the court, but one cannot begin to be a good official unless he does have a command of the rules and casebook. Your lack of rules knowledge translates directly proportinal to your ability to correctly officiate the game.

10) I repeat: Time and distance does NOT apply when obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player who is not airborne when he gains control of the ball.

MTD, Sr.

just curious
 

Maybe I'm the only one with this question . . . but I'm wondering if time and distance would apply when obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player who is not airborne when he gains control of the ball? :D

Now that's the MTD we've all come to love. :D

You know I was actually going to let this go and take my lumps and move on because I know I can not change the way most of you are viewing this play. However, like most of the rest of you. You have been drinking a little too much of that kool-aid. You have a one-track mind, you only see one side of the story, the defense. However, I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me because at least you stuck to your point, and not digress to insults which tells me a lot of about you, and there's hope for you. Also, I think you did better without the book then with it. Your points are very clear, especially the time and distance. However, I think you should have went for the hot tub.

Here's the reason why. Rule 4-23-2a. To obtain LGP the guard must have both feet touching the playing court. When you view the tape frame by frame, you can't tell (and this is after the fact) if the guard got his second (left) foot to the floor, before the shooter picked his foot up and became airborne. It's too close to call. And if I can't tell from the video afterwards, then sure as hell, you can't determine this either in real time. So here in lies my point. The official viewed the play one-way and reason that all the defender has to do is get there, like you so well put it, there is no time and distance. Instead of judging the play, this official made a rulebook call. He's set, offense! He disregarded all the other factors around him, like the player with the ball.

I'm going to give you two examples: Not an absolute but food for thought.
#1.) In baseball, we have a term that all baseball players know. It's call "tie goes to the runner!" If the base-runner gets to the bag at the precise time that the first baseman catches the ball, it's a tie, SAFE!

Now in our situation, we have Rule 4-27-2 ...contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements should not be considered illegal even though the contact is severe. My point is, you can not dismiss the offensive player here. Your call in real time should be closer to this then a charge because this is closer to what actually happened, imho. And, I'm not splitting the atom today. It's too close to call, I got a tie. Tie goes to the runner. Unfortunately, this is not baseball.

#2.) If, in the NCAA tournament or any conference playoff's leading to the big dance. If an official, calls a charge in this situation. Guaranteed, he ain't going any further in the playoff's. Scratch his name off the list. That's why you would never see that call made in college, especially men. In college, that's either a no-call or a block. You make that game deciding call in college, you be watching the rest of the playoff's from the sideline.

This doesn't have anything to do with me, or my ability to call a game. If you believe that my voice is so bad for basketball that it should be silence, than there is something wrong with you. My call, block, count the bucket, we're going home and I'm going to the next round of the playoff's. You will be going back home to study your rulebook more and learn when to apply the rule and when to apply judgment. It's in there somewhere, just keep reading, you'll find it. Don't worry about me, because I will on the court, block! Good call ref!

No, it's not baseball. Unfortunately (for you) the rules of basketball are different: going in that way against the torso of a defender who has obtained LGP is not a normal offensive movement, it is a foul. Why? Simple, the rules state so. Our job as officials is to decide, isn't it? Baseball umpires need a rule in order to decide for those situations and indeed the rules give priority to the runner (pardon me if I don't use correct baseball terminology, I'm European :)).

In our game that's a foul and it's the official's job to decide if it is on the offense or on the defense. Sorry for you, but when I saw the video for the first time I said "charge". Probably you were looking only at the offensive player, which is a big mistake.

Maybe it depends from the fact that we do mostly two-man officiating, so I tried to do what the lead would have done to judge that contact: looking at the defender. From a trail's point of view, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to decide, I agree. That's why we have 2 or 3 officials on the court.

Old School:

I did not share my thoughts with you, I told you the reality of the situation, but you still do not want to learn from me or any of the other knowledgeble officials. Many learned members of the Forum have done my work for me (I have pretty lazy about quoting the specific rules sections) by quoting the applicable rules, yet you continue to ignore these rules references and instead you quote rules that have nothing to do with the situation. You have shown that you do not want to learn nor do you want to apply the rules correctly. If you really are a basketball official, I am asking you once again to stop officaiting because you do not understand the rules nor do you want to apply them correctly.

MTD, Sr.

Tie Goes To Runner ??????
 

From Old School: "In baseball, we have a term that all baseball players know. It's call "tie goes to the runner!" If the base-runner gets to the bag at the precise time that the first baseman catches the ball, it's a tie, SAFE!"

Old School: Maybe the players know it. I thought that I had a pretty good idea about it also. Hopefully the umpires know something else. I was told by a colleague of mine, who umpires high school and college baseball, that there is no such rule, "tie goes to the runner", in baseball. He directed me to to "look it up" online, and, sure enough, he was right:

THE TIE RULE MYTH

There is no such thing in the world of umpiring. The runner is either out or safe. The umpire must judge out or safe. It is impossible to judge a tie. Lets look at the rules (OBR) 6.05 deals with a batter becoming a runner and 7.08 deals with a runner going to 2nd, 3rd, or Home.

6.05 A batter is out when (j) After a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base.
Here, as it relates to time, the rule states the runner must be tagged before he touches first base. So if they were to happen at the same time, the runner would be safe because the runner was not tagged “before”.

7.08 Any runner is out when (e) He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.
Here it states that the runner must reach the base before the ball, thus a perception of time being a tie, the runner would be out.

So in conculsion, tie goes to runner at first and tie goes to fielders at the other bases.

He was right. I was wrong. That's why he's a baseball umpire, and I'm only an umpire in half of the basketball games that I officiate.

So OldSchool doesn't know baseball rules either. I renew my invitation to become an official in games where there is no need to judge in a split second: something where people don't run across a court or field. Bridge, for example. Or something like WWF, where the official doesn't matter.

Wwf???
 

eg-italy: WWF? Be careful. I don't think that you would want to officiate a fight between a crocodile and a hippopotomus. WWF is the "official" symbol of the World Wildlife Federation. Because of this, a few years ago, the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) became the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). I know this because my son is an expert on professional wrestling. While in college, at St. Anselm, he hosted a radio, call-in, talk show on professional wrestling. Plus, I live in Connecticut, and Stamford, CT is the home of the WWE.

This shows that I don't know very much of that kind of "sport". WWE, then; I can't see OldSchool officiating wild goats when they go head crashing: too fast and there's no offense to look at, since they are both on the offense; but there's no LGP either, so, maybe...;)

So, you think that getting this call right will send an official home, and getting it wrong will help him advance? That's right, folks, disregard the rules and apply them how Old School thinks is appropriate, and you'll do all the games you want in his rec league.

I actually like Steve Palermo's reputed answer from the late 1980s much better, which, in a few words seems to capture an umpiring philosophy rather diametrically opposed to that being espoused by a particular old school poster here:

Anyway, when asked the question whether a tie really does go to the runner, his answer supposedly was: "Tie? Never seen one."

Old School:

Do you have any personal friends that officiate Div. I basketbakll? I do not officiate Div. I women's anymore, but have officiated 18 women's coll. Div. I regional playoff games and 20 women's jr. coll. regional playoff games. I still have a number of close friends that still officiate officiate men's or women's coll. Div. I, including two who have worked the women's title game (one has officiated it multiple times); as well as friends with a number of Div. I evaluators. You do NOT have a clue. So please, please (help me, my apologies to the Beatles) stop officiating basketball until you learn the rules.

MTD, Sr.

A conversation I would love to hear:

"Kids, I know you worked hard all year. I know some of you may never play organized competitive basketball again, or at least not get this close to a goal. I know some of you have pushed yourselves harder than you ever thought you could and spent countless hours making yourself as good as you can.

"And I know how disappointed you are that your season is over. But please take solace in this: It was not caprice or arbitrariness that ended your season. Always know, in your heart of hearts, this: I did not slavishly apply those silly rules. I used judgment. Godspeed."

Okay, relax, take a deep breath, and repeat after me.
It's not all about me,
Again, it's not all about me,
One more time, it's not all about me,
It's about the game,
It's about the players,
But it's not all about me.

Get over yourself!

Somebody's projecting again.

Relax Old School, take a deep breath, and repeat after me..

"I am a troll."

Again....

"I am a troll."

One more time....

"I am a troll."

If you go back and read what I said. I said, not an absolute you moron. I also said it was something the players know and used it as an example. Again, not an absolute.

Now, repeat after me.
It's not all about me,
Again, it's not all about me.

Now repeat after me....

"I am a troll."

Again.....

"I am a troll."

One more time....

"I am a troll."

where did this its not all about me nonsense come from???

i would pay $1.37 to watch OS officiate a basketball game.

Wow...that's about $2.00 more than I would pay!

It's a typical response when someone doesn't have facts to back up their argument. They would rather resort to emotional responses (such as, "It's not about me", "Throwing fellow officials under the bus", "Moron", "Drinking the Kool-Aid", and so on), rather than discussing the specific rules and facts involved.

Is this the longest thread in the history of this Board (w/ the exception, of course, of the annual baseball thread)?

And your point is?

What you really, reallly, reallly, really (help me James Brown), need to do is get over yourself, and stop drinking that kool-aid! I got to find out what's in that kool-aid, because I have never seen officials talk so crazy. You want me to quite officiating because I would call a block here? Because I stand behind my call, you want me to stop officiating? My goodness man, you could not be more into you than this statement. It's all about you! Sad...

Old School Officiating
 

Would you all be jealous of me if I told you I have seen Old School work? It's true, I've witnessed it with my own eyes. The sad part is, that it is actually harder to watch than it is to listen to him talk about it. If you think he is clueless here then you should all see him when he applies all his nonsense. So rest assured, he is not trying to get anyone going when he posts these moronic statements. He truely believes, and applies, what he posts. Sad yes, but atleast he holds to what he believes, right or wrong. But you all need to see it atleast once.

This is what happens when a narcissistic "official" gets ripped a new one by an evaluator and told he's making too much of a show of himself in his games. When he's been disregarding rules to apply his own playing and coaching philosophy, he gets reemed by assigners and evaluators and he gets told in no uncertain terms that he needs to remember the game isn't about him or his opinions. It's about the rules.
Then, since he's so narcissistic, he assumes all officials have the same issue he does. That's called projecting.

Are you serious??? So how big of a mess are his games?

Old School is viewing this thread as I type this post. Well OS, you are absolutely correct, it is not about me, it is about trying to make you a better basketball offical. You are an arrogant jacka$$, who could not officiate his way out of a wet paper bag with a flame thrower. So please stop posting and please stop officiating basketball.

MTD, Sr.

Old School:

Its all about me!! Since when I have I made it about me. You still have not listend to a word I have written or anything anybody else has written. You are so into your misinformed ideas about the rules that you are too arrogant to learn.

MTD, Sr.

This is too good to be true. We're gonna need some proof.

And who are you to make this judgement about me? It's pretty much consistent across the board that most think this call could have gone either way and been okay with it. I am okay with you calling a CHARGE here and I have mention this over and over. However, I believe this is a BLOCK, will always be a block in my book. The reason I say it's all about you is because somewhere down the line, you have made yourself god, king know-it-all, judge and jury, and because I share a different opinion on this play, I should quite officiating. Now please do tell, who elected you to be judge over who should ref and who shouldn't?

Dang-it! It's that damn kool-aid. Stop drinking it and you won't feel like you need to tell everybody what to do, and remember, it's not all about you! Basketball is bigger than me, you and all the other kool-aid drinkers on this forum. It will still be played long after me and you have served our time on this earth. So you really need to get over yourself here and this one call and take life one step at a time, one call at a time.

Good day!

What most have said is that the correct call was a charge; but they'd forgive a ref who made a block call on the spot in real time. What's outrageous is your refusal to admit it would correctly be called a charge, in spite of rules to back it up. What's outrageous is your claim that calling this charge in a big game could impede an official's career.

This may be the best post of the thread...wish someone would have thought of it 17 pages ago....

Does anyone else have a problem with the OS's argument that it is too close to know...I really think that a L in good position with a little depth could have caught B1 with both feet on the floor just before A1 goes airborne...therefore not a guess as has been argued?

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.

Old School:

Offensive foul? I did not know the play that started this thread was from a game being played under NBA/WNBA rules. I thought the play that started this thread was a high school game played under NFHS rules. I did not see an offensive foul. I saw a charging foul committed by a player in control of the ball which made the charging foul a player control foul.

If you read the NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, FIBA, and NBA/WNBA rules codes, you will not find a definition for an offensive foul in the NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, and FIBA rules codes, but you will find a definition for an offensive foul in the NBA/WNBA rules codes.

Please use correct terminology when discussing a play. Using the term offensive foul when describing a player control foul for a game played under NFHS rules tells everybody that you do not know the rules of basketball.

MTD, Sr.

Old School:

It is not my way of interpreting the rule. Read the Casebook too. I told you the history of the rule and what the Rules Committee wants of us. You just do not have a clue do you.

I am trying very hard not to get mean and sarcastic with you but you are like Frank Burns, you just invite it because are who you are.


By the way: What is "criterism?"

MTD, Sr.

In other words, carry on with what he's been doing?

Ferret Face?!!!!? ROTFLMAO!

Mark, the world is not coming to an end, believe me, it's not just yet. You also need to get out more. People are not perfect, players are not perfect, and god help us all, officials are not perfect. The rulebooks are not perfect. If they where, they wouldn't have to change the rules every year. If you want to say there is no such thing as an offensive foul in NFHS, then so be it. I vote we make that a man law.

Owe, and that last statement you just made. "Using the term offensive foul when describing a player control foul for a game played under NFHS rules tells everybody that you do not know the rules of basketball." No it only tells the officials because we are truly the only ones that care. The annoucers, the fans, the coaches, the players, even the bugs in the ceiling will know we're going the other way. That's got to be up there with one of the dumbest things I ever read on this forum.

As hard as I look, I can't find a single poster who can crack the top 20. One character seems to have a monopoly on this prize; and Mr. MTD hasn't ever even come close.

Old School:

I do not care what the players, coaches, fans, or announcers call it, I expect the rules professionals to use correct terminology. When an official does not use correct terminology it makes people wonder if he really knows his subject. It is like knowing that a personal foul is a contact foul that is committed while the ball is live. No contact foul while the ball is live can be a technical foul: It may be a flagrant foul, an intentional foul, a common foul, a foul committed against a player in the act of shooting, a team control foul, or a player control foul (by the way a player control foul is a team control foul but a team control foul is not necessarliy a player control foul, but in either case they are common fouls).

I am a structural engineer, and using correct terminology is a sign of professionalism, whether you are a sports official, a medical doctor, an dentist, an engineer, mathematician, physicists, etc. So get with the program. If you are going to run with the big dogs, start conduction yourself like one.

MTD, Sr.

Snaqwells:

Thank you for you kind comment. My check will be in the mail tomorrow. :D

MTD, Sr.

I wish I could bookmark my place in the thread so it would be easier to get back to where I was from day to day.

Personally Old School is a god send for me .. hopefully by the time this is all said and done, everybody will have forgot about my foot and all it's parts comment,:) and I will once again fall into the good graces of the brain trust and get a couple of questions answered.

Just write down the post # of the last one you read.

PS What foot comment? ;)

When there are new messages in a thread, there is a little blue icon with a white V that appears to the left of the bolded thread title. Clicking on this icon will take you to the first unread message of the thread.

Suck up! That tells me everything i need to know about you and your posts.

<b>"Shuck up"</b>?

<b>"Shuck up"</b>?

That tells me everything I need to know about you and your posts.