Bonehead play of the week.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

I still have the ball and I am just getting ready to step in and stop the jostling for position when A2 looks up to B3 and nails him in the side with an elbow that disables him for a second.
I put the whistle in my mouth give it a tweet, make sure we do not have any retaliation and head to the table ...?
What do you have?

Judgment call on your part as to if it is flagrant or not. If it's a basketball play, in other words, he's working to get position, I would just call a technical. If he went outside the bounds of keeping it basketball related, I would call flagrant. The thing about flagrant, if you're going to call that, make sure there's no doubt that the act was to injured or hurt the player. For ex: I had a game where B2 foul A1 and while A1 was picking himself up off the floor and my partner was reporting the foul to the table with his back turned to the players, B2 punched A1 in the face. There is no doubt, there was nothing basketball related to that play. The intent was to injure.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Old School

Judgment call on your part as to if it is flagrant or not. If it's a basketball play, in other words, he's working to get position, I would just call a technical.

If it's a "basketball play" then it's not going to be a technical. A dead ball contact techical can only be intentional or flagrant. A "basketball play" is neither.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If it's a "basketball play" then it's not going to be a technical. A dead ball contact techical can only be intentional or flagrant. A "basketball play" is neither.

I think we might be a little too technical here. My point was in judging flagrant or not.

__________________
Long live David Stern...

[Adam]

Damm, those pesky rules terms. Geez, Bob.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Old School

I think we might be a little too technical here.

Nice pun.

My point was in judging flagrant or not.

Then you need to use words that indicate that is what you are trying to convey.

I don't mean to make this personal, but more than once you have used a phrase, been called on it, and then the subsequent discussion makes it seem as if you "misquoted yourself." And, since, imo, your rules knowledge is suspect, it's hard to tell which is which.

So, in this thread, rather than your saying "I would just call a technical" you should have said, "I would have delayed making the ball live and admonished the players" (or something like that).

[Old School]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then you need to use words that indicate that is what you are trying to convey.

I don't mean to make this personal, but more than once you have used a phrase, been called on it, and then the subsequent discussion makes it seem as if you "misquoted yourself." And, since, imo, your rules knowledge is suspect, it's hard to tell which is which.

So, in this thread, rather than your saying "I would just call a technical" you should have said, "I would have delayed making the ball live and admonished the players" (or something like that).

Point taken and thanks for the English lesson. I keep forgetting. I keep thinking this is a public forum but really it isn't. Everytime someone from the general public comes out here, their opinions are attacked on a personal level and then asked to leave.

I think too much emphasis is put on who is saying it and not what is being said. A problem I noticed this culture tends to have. It's not about what is said but more who said it. I always like the movie where the president of the company takes a job at the lower level so that he can get to know the people from the ground up. It's amazing what you learn about people in a setting like this. For ex: you learn who the people are that have personal agendas, who are 2-faced, that are out for their own. You learn who you can trust and who you can't. Then a miracle happens and you meet a honest person who treats everyone the same, who respects everyone he/she meets. These are the type of people you want running your company.

No, this is really not a public forum because the general public is not welcome here. It is a private forum with a public interface. The motto here is shoot the messenger, first, and then ask questions. Kind of goes to your 2nd paragraph, wouldn't you say Bob.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Old School

I think too much emphasis is put on who is saying it and not what is being said. A problem I noticed this culture tends to have. It's not about what is said but more who said it.

It's true that some posters are given the "benefit of the doubt" while others are not. That's based on the individual's posting history.

It's equally true that a statment such as "I would call a regular (neither Intentional nor Flagrant) Technical" during a dead ball would quickly get corrected no matter who said it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

Point taken and thanks for the English lesson. I keep forgetting. I keep thinking this is a public forum but really it isn't. Everytime someone from the general public comes out here, their opinions are attacked on a personal level and then asked to leave.

I think too much emphasis is put on who is saying it and not what is being said. A problem I noticed this culture tends to have. It's not about what is said but more who said it. I always like the movie where the president of the company takes a job at the lower level so that he can get to know the people from the ground up. It's amazing what you learn about people in a setting like this. For ex: you learn who the people are that have personal agendas, who are 2-faced, that are out for their own. You learn who you can trust and who you can't. Then a miracle happens and you meet a honest person who treats everyone the same, who respects everyone he/she meets. These are the type of people you want running your company.

No, this is really not a public forum because the general public is not welcome here. It is a private forum with a public interface. The motto here is shoot the messenger, first, and then ask questions. Kind of goes to your 2nd paragraph, wouldn't you say Bob.

OS:

You still do not get the point that. This is an open forum. Basketball officials, coaches, players, fans, and officials that do not officiate basketball but do officiate other sports read this forum. The basketball officials have a professional obligatioin to use the correct terminology and quote the correct rules and casebook plays so that the non-basketball officials who read and sometimes post in this forum can benefit from reading threads in this forum. You have been told many times in the past the importance of using correct terminology and you still refuse to do so. Please get with the program.

MTD, Sr.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

OS:

You still do not get the point that. This is an open forum. Basketball officials, coaches, players, fans, and officials that do not officiate basketball but do officiate other sports read this forum. The basketball officials have a professional obligatioin to use the correct terminology and quote the correct rules and casebook plays so that the non-basketball officials who read and sometimes post in this forum can benefit from reading threads in this forum. You have been told many times in the past the importance of using correct terminology and you still "refuse" to do so. Please get with the porgram.

MTD, Sr.

It's not that I refuse. I'm just not a scholar in the art of rule knowledge. For that I apologize, but I refuse to accept personal insults simply because you disagree or you don't like the way I said it. As bad as I am perceived by some of the others, is as bad as some of the other members are in unethical conduct on this board. Trying to teach someone by insulting them doesn't work for everyone. It may work on those that are less committed, but not for everyone.