I AGREE!! LOCK IT NOW!! LOCK IT NOW!!

MTD, Sr.

<TABLE class=tborder id=post429763 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 429763"><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal">View Post http://forum.officiating.com/images/...n/post_old.gif Today, 04:36pm </TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>Remove user from ignore list
Old School
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1>This message is hidden because Old School is on your ignore list.</SPAN>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
:):):):):):):):):)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe Juulie has to be the one to ask. :cool:

OKay, I'm asking!

But I still don't seem to have the oomph to get OS "kicked out" for good.

It's beyond time to lock it down.

If I have a vote, please remove this obvious troll.

This was my exact point in post 145 of this thread, Tony. I'm with you 100%

And, once again, I add my voice to those calling for Old School's outright banishment from the forum.

Good point Mark, your logic makes perfect sense to me and i agree with you that this is wrong. In this thread alone, we've made some excellent points for rules changes. Discussion at it's best...

A sign of the apocolypse.
 

Mark:

I feel your pain, Old School agrees with you. Please do not feel ashamed.'

MTD, Sr.

I respectfully disagree with you again. It is never irrelevant to doing what is right. I don't care where you are or what you are doing, it is never irrelevant. I remember being with guys that wanted to rob a liquor store. Sure I could have took the money and did whatever we wanted to do at the time. However, my belief in what is right and what is not is very strong and I refuse to take part in it. It is never irrelevant, never.

This is where you are wrong and your need to condemn me has taken over your inability to see the truth. The truth is, how can i deviate from a rule I never knew. I assume I was doing the right thing. I did not learn specifically until this thread. When in doubt, and not sure what to do, I call on my judgment and fair play to help me make a decision. Albeit, it was wrong, in a situation like this, what would you do?

Motive is never irrelevant Snaqs. For example, the motives of the others on this forum to burn a cross in my front yard is very significant. It shows what type of officials they really are. Being a good official requires more than just getting a rule right at the right time.

But you completely missed Mark's entire point, which is that good officials call the rule correctly, even when they disagree with the rule. Mark doesn't think the technical foul penalty is fair; but he enforces it correctly, instead of inserting his own "judgment" or "doing what's right".

Although I don't know I'm wasting pixels on you. You're not a real ref and never will be.

Good officials <b>know</b> the rule also. You can't call what you don't know(unless you're Old School).

I don't have any need to condemn you. I do feel a compunction to correct your erroneous interpretations. That said, if the above quote was an accurate representation of your part in this debate, it wouldn't have come nearly this far. You've stated flatly in this discussion that you would do what you want in spite of the rule; because you think it's more fair.

Okay, let me lay this out a bit differently. Leaving aside morally neutral behavior and motives, there are four possibilities:

1. Doing the right thing for right motives.
2. Doing the wrong thing for wrong motives.
3. Doing the right thing for wrong motives.
4. Doing the wrong thing for right motives.

Example of #1: Calling a kid for traveling because he did.
Example of #2: Ignoring clear basketball rules (such as traveling) because you want to get home early and catch the latest Tyson fight from prison.
Example of #3: Becoming a basketball official because you think the cheerleaders are hot.
Example of #4: Ignoring clear basketball rules because you think they aren't fair.

The point is not that motive is comletely irrelevant. The point is that motive is irrelevant when determining whether a given action is "the right thing" or not.

And drop all the martyr references, would you? No one here wants to burn any crosses in your yard. Go look up the word "hyperbole."

Your version of "right" may be different than my version of right. Therefore, there must be some standard to go by - and there is. The rule book as it is currently written is that standard. We may disagree with a rule as it is written, but we are obligated to know and enforce the rules as written. Here we discuss what a rule interpretation may actually mean, and yes we get different opinions, but in most cases the rules are clear and the interpretation thereof is also clear. When that is known we must call the game that way. To not adhere to the rule book just because you feel something else is "right" is poor advice. That is what leads to inconsistency from game to game and drives coaches and players nuts.

Exactly! You condem and deride the ref that knows the rules. To be a good official requires more than just knowing rules. But you can never be a good official without a good knowledge of the rules. You can have the best court presence in the world but still be considered a crappy ref if you don't know the rules.

This environment is for questions about rules and their interpretations. The forum has no sway with any rule making committee that I know of. There are some who participate here who have provided input to some members of the NFHS committee, but that does not mean the forum has any power of suggestion to that committee.

Contrary to what you believe, your disagreements with rules do not add to the discussion. You become like a fanboy, whining about things you think are wrong and things you dislike. I have read the rulebook several times. To me the rules make sense and are logical. There are a couple of points that seem ambiguously worded to me, but that does not invalidate my obligation to know the rules and call the game according to that standard. As a patched official, I MUST know the rules, I MUST keep current on the changes, my study of the rules MUST be ongoing. I lose respect for those officials who are unwilling to do this, who fake their way through games on inadequate rules knowledge.

Gotta disagree with you that your example fits #3. It's because of the way cheerleaders are sometimes "motive" that I became a ref. ;)

Note: this doesn't apply for male cheerleaders - not that's there's anything wrong with that. :p
Additional note: this is not a put down of male cheerleaders, merely a notation that I am not attracted to them. At least, that's what I tell my wife.