A wise man once said, he who has done no wrong, has nothing to apologize for.

Stating my opinion on a call should not be something I should have to apologize for. Maybe you and some of the others should apologize to me for being so arrogant and jumping to conclusions.

Your wise man has never been married.

No, I'm just being real and telling the truth. Some people don't like the truth, some people can't handle the truth. Are you one of those people?

I caught that, "most of the time" What are you really saying here? 50-50, 60-40, 70-30 of the good officials get this call right "MOST" of the time. The reality is, this is a tough call to make correctly. I don't think you want to judge an officials ability over how he calls this call on the fly. After the fact, we can argue until the sky is purple, it doesn't really matter now does it? It only matters in the game.

I challenge you to show this play to 10 officials, without the replay. Ask them for there call. I bet your total would be something like 9 out of 10, block, and remember the camera got the best angle. Not the guys on the floor.

Dan, you are hereby elevated to "wise man".

You have to be married for this to be the case? :D

Peace

Ok, so he left out the word "essentially" in his statement.

Same meaning.

:D

Dan:

I hope your wife doesn't read this forum or you may be sleeping on the coach tonight. :D

MTD, Sr.

I see the benefit of not being married. Since I bought the couch and the bed, I can sleep where I want to. :D

Peace

I dunno...I can't remember...

http://www.mindspring.com/~boycekb/i.../SadBanana.gif

btw MTD, interesting typo.

What are you implying?

OS:

You are no wise man (I know Peter Webb, and you are no Peter Webb.). Your posts on this forum prove that. I have given you history lessons of how the guarding/screening rules came to be written in the early 1950's and how they are to be applied but you just will not listen. You do not understand the rules and refuse to listen to people who really know the rules. I believe that you could even drive Mary Struckhoff batty.

I am not being arrogant and jumping to conclusions. You do NOT know anything about the rules. Your writings prove that. Please, please fill out your profile completely and stop hiding. Stop hiding behind a nom de plume. We want to know who you are and where you live so we can avoid officiating with you. (See my profile if you need an example.)

If I teach a basketball officiating class this year I am going to write to Brad and ask his permission to use your posts as an example of incorrect rules application.

MTD, Sr.

Sleeping on the coach???? :D

Mary Sruckhoff <b>isn't</b> batty?:confused:

Who'd a thunk it!:rolleyes:

OOPS!! But I don't think I will edit this one. :D

MTD, Sr.

95 % of really good officials will get this call right 95% of the time.

The reality is that this is NOT a tough call for a good official. It is tough for an average offical, or for a new official who hasn't quite got all the details down yet. It's pure guesswork for the official who thinks he/she is better than he/she really is.


Actually, I DO want officials judged by their ability to get this call right "on the fly". If they can't do this correctly on the fly, they aren't worth their salt. This IS WHY WE GET THE BIG BUCKS -- TO GET THESE KINDS OF CALLS RIGHT!!


If I get to choose which 10 officials I show it to, I'll get 10 out of 10 correctly calling it. I know who's good and who's not. And I know how you would have called it, and which category that puts you into.

I think by definition a man who has been married cannot be a wise man. ;)

To be fair, don't stack the deck. To be honest, choose your ten, and I bet if you show it once, no replay (just like in the game), force them to make the call right now. I bet you are nowhere close to 95%.

I know you really don't get me do you. Well, being the nice and humble guy that I am, I'm going to tell you. I am the exact opposite of you. When you look in the mirror at yourself. I am standing directly behind you, but facing the other way and I move in direct sync with you, so you can never see me. You notice how you have to be right about everything and you insist on making me look wrong. Well, I'm just the opposite of that. I too feel that I am right and I insist on making you look wrong. IOW's neither one of us will give in, back down on our position. If we where world leaders, we would be looking at WWIII. Since we can not agree to disagree, because you have to be right. The debates continue.....

Debating rule knowledge with master minds like yourself is very challenging and rewarding for the old sole like me who was never successful at anything. One day I will be gone and you will miss these weekly chats/spats with this old fool.

Have a nice day, it's been fun, it really has.....

WHAT??!! :confused:

MTD, Sr.

It's a strange but oddly beautiful language called Oldschoolian. It has yet to be transferred into any of the modern languages, but there is still hope that there might be a Rosetta Stone of some kind lying in a cave somewhere on this planet that will aid in that task. Samples of Oldschoolian writings are currently being saved for deciphering by future scholars on the off chance that such a stone is ever found. The post that you are referencing is just one of the posts that has been saved for future translation.

Of course, there is also another point of view that has been espoused by other linguistic experts who have tried to interpret the true meaning of the Oldshool Papers. Their fear is that the planet is not ready for what is contained in the OldSchool parchments. They are predicting the end of civilization, as we know it, if the OldSchool Papers are ever translated.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.:eek:

JR:

ROFLMAO!!

MTD, Sr.

Yep, and the case book play to back it up:

10.6.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-7)

My wife of 40 years strongly disagrees with you. She also added that you are wrong.:D

This says a lot.

There is a third theory to which I subscribe. The theory is best described with an analogy.
When toddlers learn to talk, they start be emulating sounds they hear even though they don't know what those sounds mean. Occasionally, an adult can be found who can spell (sorta) and type (sorta) but hasn't really advanced beyond the sound emulation stage of communication. They use words and punctuation, but can't make any sense no matter how hard they try.