I think we can do better than this. We are wiser today then we where when this rule was written. We can do better and you know it. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to get rules changed in the federation. We all agree these rules are better, makes the game better. Why then can't we get it changed? What is the hold-up? Old farks like JR who think the code is perfect. Do we have guys in the federation that's asleep at the wheel? What the heck is going on?

I'm not going there, you could still lose the game at .2 or .5, don't matter.

Nope, you got it completely wrong. I don't think that the code is perfect. I think that it is what it is, and we have to use the rules that we're given. That's the difference between you and real officials. Real officials buy the rulebooks and then learn the rules and how to apply them. You? As near as I can tell, you do whatever you saw on tv last.That's why you'll always be a recleague warrior without a clue as to what officiating is really all about.

WOBW.

Who all agrees? You and I don't! You and Jeff don't. You and Woody don't. Who all are you referring to?

The rules committee meets every year and discusses many different situations every year. They aren't asleep at the wheel. They just don't see things the way you do. That doesn't make them "old farks" whatever the heck that means.

Jim and Adam, also please note that quixotic and chaotic sound a lot alike. I'm hard pressed to decide if one is more applicable to this discussion than the other.

Nope. Folks like JR just think the rules should be enforced as written. If you don't like them, work to get them changed.
You put .5 up, and a kid catches and shoots to win the game, and replay shows you should have put up .2, not allowing a catch-and-shoot, you can bet your wreckleague a$$ you'll never work that level again. Not only did you do something that wasn't "fair," but you don't have the rules to back you up. That's what is going to happen if you guess.

Let me help you out here. My posts regarding when to change the AP arrow are quixotic.
Old School's reasoning on rules is chaotic.

Ah, thank you. I feel much better now.

I am in agreement here. We should enforce the rules as they are written.

No assigner in the world is going to quiver over .3 seconds in the absence of a monitor. If you lose a game by .3 tenths of a second, by one point. I'm sure there's other factors in the game that I could point to that caused your team to lose, like # of turnovers, missed F/T's, etc. You want to fire a referee because he's off .3 tenths of a second. I tell you what. There won't be many referee's left to officiate if we do this.

On a more personal note. If the worse thing I did in a game was to be off .3 tenths of faction of an error. Hell, I would have made DI 3 years ago.

I feel the same way but it doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Especially where we have documented proof that it could be better. Clock stopping in the last minute of the game after a made basket. The list goes on.....

Glad to see you've changed your mind. No, but he will quibble over your absolute disregard for the rules if you put time on the clock without having seen the clock with time on it. Unless, of course, you're going to lie and say you saw the time on the clock. Go look up non-sequiter.

No one is saying you're going to get fired for missing it by .3 seconds. You'd get fired for blatantly, purposefully, willfully, and brazenly ignoring the rules as written; which state clearly you can't put time on the clock if you don't know how much time to put on. You can justify this on whatever moral and/or civil rights grounds you want to; the fact is, you cannot do it by rule. When you disregard the rules, for whatever reason, and implement your own vision of what's fair, you make the game about you. And that is a disservice to the game.

BTW, disregard what's in red above, it's obviously not relevant to this post.

So is this Old School?
http://z.about.com/d/goamsterdam/1/0...l_windmill.JPG

Somehow, Man of LaMancha seems more than fitting.

LIked that Dictionary.com site, eh?!:D

p.s. it's non sequitur

Don't you need to 'redden' that second 'u'?

My typo ought to be evidence enough I wasn't at dictionary.com. :)

No, that was my position all alone, you just read into it what you thought I meant and ran with it. You guys tend to do that a lot. They have a term for that, jump to conclusions. There is also a cure for it. Stop drinking the kool-aid, JR spike it.

Who said I didn't see the clock?

If I put .5 seconds up on the clock, that means I saw the clock. If I call a foul and the buzzer goes off, like in the video, and I'm looking at the players, but i know my whistle occurred before the horn went off. I'm putting .5 seconds on the clock. Now, who's going to challenge that? The coach, the assigner, the video? When you start telling me what i saw as an official, then you can officiate the game cause i no longer want to work for you. If it makes you feel better, I saw .5 on the clock after I view the whistle. Feel better now? Am I lying? Am I cheating? The point is, you will never know. You can't prove it so why argue it. The point is, you have to trust the crew you have working the game that they are going to make the right decision. Leave it at that. If the officials in the video decided they wanted to put time back on the clock, the only issue is how much time should be put back on the clock. I could support any decision they made here. It is their game, let them decide how they want their game to end.

In that video, I'm going home, game over, picture perfect ending to a great game. In the NBA and college, we got to check the monitor to see how much time is left on the clock after the whistle blew. it's that simple.