Block/Charge?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You're welcome, but I didn't do it for your sake. It was just that seeing you agree with OS threatened to jerk the rug right out from under my entire worldview. I knew, I just knew, you didn't mean it, but I couldn't take the chance!

No, upon first reaction, he saw and penalize just like any other official in that situation, including myself. BLOCK! The only difference is I admit it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

No, upon first reaction, he saw and penalize just like any other official in that situation, including myself. BLOCK! The only difference is I admit it.

No , the big difference is that you won't admit you're wrong. It may be that some people would have called it a block during the game flow. But it SHOULD have been PC. JR would be willing to admit that, and you won't. Being wrong is one thing, but defending being wrong is entirely different.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

No , the big difference is that you won't admit you're wrong. It may be that some people would have called it a block during the game flow. But it SHOULD have been PC. JR would be willing to admit that, and you won't. Being wrong is one thing, but defending being wrong is entirely different.

I've admitted several times that this was a PC foul. Several times. I also admitted that in real time, I need instant replay to see and judge the play correctly. The answer to the OP is PC, no doubt. The answer in real time, might not always be PC. That's the reality, like it or not, that's the reality.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

I've admitted several times that this was a PC foul. Several times. I also admitted that in real time, I need instant replay to see and judge the play correctly. The answer to the OP is PC, no doubt. The answer in real time, might not always be PC. That's the reality, like it or not, that's the reality.

OS:

You are so full of horse manure. You have been advocating against the guarding rules as they are written this entire thread. Your post above just validates the fact that you have no credibility at all. Please go away until you are ready to apologize to everybody on this forum for you idiotic interpretations of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[canuckrefguy]

The call is almost irrelevant.

What I REALLY noticed is that the official in question made about the weakest, meekest, most wishy-washy-looking call to the table I've ever seen. That just screams out "oh my, I just f***ed up, please berate me."

FWIW - charge. Offensive player had a full landing before the crash. He has to "expect to be guarded".

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

OS:

You are so full of horse manure. You have been advocating against the guarding rules as they are written this entire thread. Your post above just validates the fact that you have no credibility at all. Please go away until you are ready to apologize to everybody on this forum for you idiotic interpretations of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

Your wise man has never been married.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Your wise man has never been married.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Your wise man has never been married.

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

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Your wise man has never been married.

Dan:

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

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Your wise man has never been married.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I believe that you could even drive Mary Struckhoff batty.

Mary Sruckhoff isn't batty?

Who'd a thunk it!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

I've admitted several times that this was a PC foul. Several times. I also admitted that in real time, I need instant replay to see and judge the play correctly. The answer to the OP is PC, no doubt. The answer in real time, might not always be PC. That's the reality, like it or not, that's the reality.

Admitting that you need instant replay to see and judge the play correctly means that you are admitting that you are inadequate as a referee. Are you really saying that? The reality is that most good officials get this call right most of the time. If you are saying you can't get this call right, you're saying you're not a good official. Period.

[Z REF]

I can't agree more with the philosophy of a few of the posters on here about teaching about proper positioning to be able to see the same angle, or as close as possible, as we have from the camera.

It has been stated that this is a great reason for the slot (coaches!!!), but lacking that, certainly it is a good reason for the lead to not bail on the play (presumed, but not certain since we can't see his position, but he did come a long way to report).

Great things for newer officials to think about. Knowing the rule is very important to having the knowledge to make the ruling. Positioning yourself to apply the rule however can be just as important. Great video for us all to learn more.

Also, I couldn't help but notice the trail wobbling up the court....funny stuff!