Watta ya got video?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

1) I never said anything about the heel needing to be down before the foot is set.

2) But, since you mentioned it, I haven't seen anything in the rules that talk about the foot needing to be "set" before LGP is established. What does that mean? How does the foot become "set." (I have been looking at 4:23:1-5).

3)So, given that the definition of the "foot", two of which are "feet", is the sum of all the the different parts at the end of the leg, it would therefore mean that, yes, the rule does state that the heel must be down, as must the toe also be down, before LGP can be established.

1) Oh? Then who was the jmaellis that stated the following back at 6:05pm?--- In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor, you can see the Southridge player left foot is not completely SET on the floor, it looks like his heel was still up." If you go back and review the posts, you're the only that's been talking about a foot being set. I pointed out that both feet just have to be touching the court.

2) That's exactly what I was asking you. What has whether a heel is off the floor or not got to do with anything? NFHS rule 4-23-2(a), which is the applicable rule for the block/charge being discussed simply states that to attain LGP, the guard must have both feet touching the playing court. There nothing anywhere stating that the foot must be flat on the court, and there never has been.

3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation. There is NO rule requiring that the heel has to touch the court before a defender can attain LGP. The rule says that the foot merely has to touch the court.

Don't take any of that personally either.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...
3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation.

How long does it take for you to understand that jmaellis was trying to be helpful and learn? Nothing was being challenged, helpful observations were being made and some questions were being asked.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

How long does it take for you to understand that jmaellis was trying to be helpful and learn? Nothing was being challenged, helpful observations were being made and some questions were being asked.

How long does it take you to figure out, Bucky, that I was trying to help him learn? You know, learn how the LGP rules really work?

It'll probably take you a long time, seeing that you're dumb as a post when it comes to officiating, and always have been.

Don't take that personally either. It's a fact.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How long does it take you to figure out, Bucky, that I was trying to help him learn? You know, learn how the LGP rules really work?

It'll probably take you a long time, seeing that you're dumb as a post when it comes to officiating, and always have been.

Don't take that personally either. It's a fact.

Hit the snooze button... I should have realized your true intent was to be helpful.
Bucky?

[Nevadaref]

BTW how about a big thumbs up to Rookie Dude for not only working this contest and making some big decisions, but for sharing them with all of us, so that we can learn and get better. THANKS!!!

PS I don't know how you or someone else posted these video clips, but I would love to get a copy of the DVD of this game for training purposes for my local area officials. PM me, please.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW how about a big thumbs up to Rookie Dude for not only working this contest and making some big decisions, but for sharing them with all of us, so that we can learn and get better. THANKS!!!

PS I don't know how you or someone else posted these video clips, but I would love to get a copy of the DVD of this game for training purposes for my local area officials. PM me, please.

Thanks Nevada and all the other officials that analyzed these video clips and gave your opinions.

I was happy to see some of the big dogs here agree with the call...I also agree that it was so close a block might have been called, I just wouldn't want to be on the "block" side of that particular call at that particular point in the game. (Game winning shot) Don't get me wrong...if I thought it was a block I would have called a block. But, after viewing the film...I'm glad I was on the "charge" side of that call. (Sometimes we officials just get lucky)

Nevada: Our local newspaper has many video clips, like these, of certain games in our area.
Go to tricityherald.com and sign up (free) to get these clips...you need Quciktime to view them.

I'll post some more if you guys would like.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Nevada: Our local newspaper has many video clips, like these, of certain games in our area.
Go to tricityherald.com and sign up (free) to get these clips...you need Quciktime to view them.

I'll post some more if you guys would like.

I have QT and can view the videos perfectly, however, in order to save them to my computer, it says that I need to purchase QT PRO. Perhaps I can find someone who has that or maybe I will go ahead and get it.

Please post more of them, they are great!

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Oh? Then who was the jmaellis that stated the following back at 6:05pm?--- In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor, you can see the Southridge player left foot is not completely SET on the floor, it looks like his heel was still up." If you go back and review the posts, you're the only that's been talking about a foot being set. I pointed out that both feet just have to be touching the court.

2) That's exactly what I was asking you. What has whether a heel is off the floor or not got to do with anything? NFHS rule 4-23-2(a), which is the applicable rule for the block/charge being discussed simply states that to attain LGP, the guard must have both feet touching the playing court. There nothing anywhere stating that the foot must be flat on the court, and there never has been.

3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation. There is NO rule requiring that the heel has to touch the court before a defender can attain LGP. The rule says that the foot merely has to touch the court.

Don't take any of that personally either.

Good Grief!

1. First and foremost, you need to review your post(s) before you start throwing daggers. Yes, I said "set" as in, "his foot was not completely set on the floor," meaning that part of the foot was still off of the floor, I used it as a verb. You said, "What rule states that a defender has to have his heel down to have that foot set?" When you used the word "set" you used it in a different context, as if the word "set" was a state of being and part of the definition for LGP (which, BTW may also be a verb, I'm not sure). I'm sure the use of the word "set" is officialese (so to speak) but it's been used a couple of times in the thread as if the foot being "set" as if that word was part of the definition for LGP, which I'm sure we both agree it isn't.

2. 4-23-2 is the rule that I was looking out when I was trying to figure out what rule applied, so apparently I got that right. Looking at 4-23-2(a), and discarding all the filler words, the operative words that we are really left with are "guard .. both .. feet .. touching .. court." The only one of these terms that is defined in the rule book is court (court areas to be specific). You have emphasized the word "touching" in your argument, leaving me with the impression that you consider it an important term. So help me understand, why do you consider the definition of only one of the words in the rule to be important when it comes to defining this particular rule.

and finally:

3. More dagger throwing. Tell me exactly what I have "made up." I'm new, so I agree, I may not yet understand the concept .... but I didn't make up anything.

When I first registered on this board in December it became apparent to me that I would have to quickly decide who in this collective basketball officiating brain trust to pay attention to and who to ignore. You are one of the ones I pay attention to as is Nevada, BITS, some guy named Rutledge, and a few others. What I liked about you was your strict interpretation of the rules and the challenges issued to other people to show you where it says this or where it doesn't say that. Your particular challenge to me was that the rule does not say that the heel must touch the court to establish LGP, it only says that the "foot" (that specific word, and in the past you have been all about specifics) merely must touch the court. I've never disagreed with you, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it says. All I've done is define "foot" and like it or not, the heel is part of the foot.

So, with all that said, my lovely bride has summoned me to an enchilada dinner and I'm hungry. I'll be back later.

Added after dinner:

This whole situation puts me in a real pickle. Not only do I have to ignore JRutledge but I can't describe play by play a video without making sure that Jurassic Referee agrees with the termanology I'm using. Old School do you need a Padawan Learner by chance??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

First and foremost, you need to review your post(s) before you start throwing daggers.

When I first registered on this board in December it became apparent to me that I would have to quickly decide who in this collective basketball officiating brain trust to pay attention to and who to ignore.

Not only do I have to ignore JRutledge but I can't describe play by play a video without making sure that Jurassic Referee agrees with the termanology I'm using.

I reviewed my posts. I disagreed with your interpretation and understanding of the guarding rule. Still do.

'Nuff said from me. Simply ignore in the future.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I reviewed my posts. I disagreed with your interpretation and understanding of the guarding rule. Still do.

The problem was, and still is, that I didn't have an interpretation or an understanding when I originally posted; I had a question. So for your benefit, so you don't flip out in the future I will be extra careful to include some sort of statement that my post is either a question or an opinion, so you won't be confused.

'Nuff said from me. Simply ignore in the future.

I'm here to learn, not ignore, so in the future I will simply filter the nonsense.(BTW the ignore comment regarding JRutledge is a joke relating to a different thread)