FBI investigating NBA ref

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Why not just judge what they are saying instead of judging the person.

Around here, that's how the person gets judged; based on what they're saying.

Originally Posted by Old School

Judge me for the content of my character and not the color of my skin. Martin Luther King

Funny thing about this board, skin color doesn't really affect how one is perceived here. It's all about what you say that determines how people view your character. Given what you've posted, I see three choices:

1. You don't really officiate and are just lying about your experience so you can feel part of the group. There may be other reasons on this one, but I find them all less charitable. Juulie tells me occasionally that I should remain charitable.

2. You really do officiate as much as you say, and with the philosophies and general rules ignorance that you display here. This says more about the state of basketball in your area than it does about you.

3. You really do officate as much as you say, but know more about the rules and hold more normal opinions on officiating philosophies than what you display here. This is the least charitable option, IMO.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The content of your character is partly apparent when you don't tell us where you work, who you work for, what association you are in, what your reality is. When you imply that you work a higher level than you really do, your character is very clear to all of us.

We judge what you say, and not your person, and then you get all testy and chippy. You don't say things that are not meaningful or significant for most refs who work in high school ball and have to use NFHS rules. Worse, some of the things you say are confusing or misleading to these refs. THat's not judging the person, that's judging the things you say. As you request.

And how could we possibly judge by the color of your skin when you have never been seen by any of us, and WE DON"T KNOW THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN???? In other words, judging by what you say, what you say is confusing and irrelevant (note spelling).

No comment

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Old School

No comment

This is actually the smartest post you have ever made.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

And this...

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Goes on to say stuff about casting pearls before swine and looking out for wolves in sheep's clothing, good trees, bad trees..stuff like that. All somehow Old School related.

You forgot this......


"Don't piss me off!--God

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

And this...

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Goes on to say stuff about casting pearls before swine and looking out for wolves in sheep's clothing, good trees, bad trees..stuff like that. All somehow Old School related.

Except for the good trees of course.

You do realize (I hope) that this passage in the Bible doesn't say NOT to judge . . . it says that IF you judge you will be judged by the same standard. I am willing to put my credibility up for judgement . . .

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I told him that it had not and that as long as the player makes a legitimate attempt to block the shot that there is nothing wrong with the play. He replied that they don't call it that way in California.

Damn 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

You do realize (I hope) that this passage in the Bible doesn't say NOT to judge . . . it says that IF you judge you will be judged by the same standard. I am willing to put my credibility up for judgement . . .

No, I didn't

I actually thought it had something to do with Judge Judy.

Thanks for bringing me up to date.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You forgot this......


"Don't piss me off!--God

Damn 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!

[psujaye]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'll break it down. When holding the ball, you only need to have something touching the front court and nothing touching the backcourt. If you're standing on one foot holding the ball, if that foot is in the front court, you're in the front court. You could be doing a half-a$$ hokey-pokey with the other leg shaking it over the back court line; you're still in the FC and so is the ball. Air space is irrelevant.
The only time three points come into play (both feet and the ball) is while dribbling.

Thanks snagwells; that cleared it up for me. I appreciate it. I wasn't aware that the 'three points' only came into play when dribbling.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by psujaye

Thanks snagwells; that cleared it up for me. I appreciate it. I wasn't aware that the 'three points' only came into play when dribbling.

and when dribbling from backcourt to frontcourt. Once the dribbler does establish frontcourt status, the 3 point rule is as irrelevant as a dirty shirt, as meaningless as yesterday's newspaper. Once frontcourt status is attained, ANY single touch in the backcourt, either one foot, the other foot, or the ball, is a violation. Again, on a dribble.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Once frontcourt status is attained, ANY single touch in the backcourt, either one foot, the other foot, or the ball, is a violation. Again, on a dribble.

Yes, and touching any part of the division line is considered to be the backcourt... contrary to what some summer coaches believe, a player doesn't have to cross the line to be IN the backcourt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Yes, and touching any part of the division line is considered to be the backcourt... contrary to what some summer coaches believe, a player doesn't have to cross the line to be IN the backcourt.

But he does have to cross the line to be in the front court.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

You do realize (I hope) that this passage in the Bible doesn't say NOT to judge . . . it says that IF you judge you will be judged by the same standard. I am willing to put my credibility up for judgement . . .

You do realize that "Judge not" means "Do not judge".

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

You do realize that "Judge not" means "Do not judge".

Do you realize that "Lest ye be judged" means "if you don't want to be judged by others?" "Judge not" is not a commandment, it is a warning. It means "Watch out, you may not realize what you're getting yourself into" Apt words for OS who brought the whole subject up in the first place!

You also should realize that "Judging" in the context originally written, didn't mean "to discriminate between right and wrong". It meant "to impose final sentence". So "Judge not lest ye be judged" meant, "You can't know who's going to Hell and who's not, so you'd better not treat anyone as a Hellion". It was never intended to mean, "Don't ever tell anyone what they're doing is wrong, or against God's law". Rather we need to judge right and wrong, but not consign anyone to the ranks of hopeless or automatically condemned.

I'm willing to do that myself, by the way. I might tell you you're wrong, wrong, wrong in certain actions, but I'll never write you off or condemn you. You'll have to set that up for yourself! (I don't mean you personally Jim, just whoever is out there).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Do you realize that "Lest ye be judged" means "if you don't want to be judged by others?" "Judge not" is not a commandment, it is a warning. It means "Watch out, you may not realize what you're getting yourself into" Apt words for OS who brought the whole subject up in the first place!

You also should realize that "Judging" in the context originally written, didn't mean "to discriminate between right and wrong". It meant "to impose final sentence". So "Judge not lest ye be judged" meant, "You can't know who's going to Hell and who's not, so you'd better not treat anyone as a Hellion". It was never intended to mean, "Don't ever tell anyone what they're doing is wrong, or against God's law". Rather we need to judge right and wrong, but not consign anyone to the ranks of hopeless or automatically condemned.

I'm willing to do that myself, by the way. I might tell you you're wrong, wrong, wrong in certain actions, but I'll never write you off or condemn you. You'll have to set that up for yourself! (I don't mean you personally Jim, just whoever is out there).

As an amateur theologian, well said!