1) I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but according to the rules the clock should have started. Rules 5-9-1&4 to be exact. The timer started the clock according to the rules. <b>You</b> didn't.

2) What difference does it make what the purpose and intent of the rule is? :confused: All that really matters is that <b>you</b> call the play <b>BY</b> the rule. And the rule says that <b>you</b> start the clock on a throw-in when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court. <b>You</b> are supposed to signal time in on that touch, as per 5-9-4. When <b>you</b> fail to do as instructed by rule, the timer is now authorized to start the clock on his own. Don't blame the timer for <b>your</b> screw-up. The timer did not commit a mistake.

3) You can argue it if you want, but I still don't see you citing any rules to back up your argument. The official is supposed to stop the clock because of the violation. The timer isn't authorized to stop the clock until <b>you</b> signal him to do so.

4) Hooray for you and your definite knowledge. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am for you. Now.......whatinthehell does that have to do with starting and stopping the clock on a throw-in as per the current written rules? There's nothing anywhere in the rules that I know of that can negate the specific language of R5-9-1&4. You can't put time back on the clock when there was NO timer's mistake made and the clock started and stopped by the <b>existing</b> rules.

I agree with JR. The rule is clear as written.

It (the kick) is a violation, not when the timer sees it but when the official calls it. Time can elapse from when it happens to when the whistle blows. Timers should not play referee with regards to the clock.

Just like a travel. The travel happens, the official recognizes, blows whistle, timer hears, timer stops clock. A whole second or more may have elapsed from when the violation actually occured and when the timer actually stopped the clock. Now, are we gonna decide to put 3 tenths, 7 tenths, etc for every violation, foul, etc., too and call it a timer error? No.

But, allbeit those are running clock examples and this discussion revolves around a stopped clock throw-in during a 1 point game with 3 seconds left in the 4th. At that point, a little communication between the timer and official would be beneficial, considering the rule as written.

You keep bringing up 5-9-1, and according to 5-9-1, the timer did <B>not</B> start the clock according to the rule. The rule states the timer is to start the clock on my signal, and they didn't. By rule, I also stopped the clock immediately upon the violation: 5-8-1(c). I followed the rule; they didn't stop the clock immediately, so there's the mistake.

You're kidding, right?

Good, now we're getting somewhere... :D

Look, I keep saying I understand the point you're making about 5-9-4, and the difference between that wording and the new ruling. I hope they fix that with one simple little word addition when the books come out.

Ok, I'm going to try to improve on my interlect over lunch.

That would be incorrect! You can always put time back on the clock provided you have definite knowledge, which makes this argument kind of moot. If it's .03 seconds on the clock and the ball was kicked on the APTI, put .01 seconds back on the clock and play it out. If the ball is kicked again, the game is over.

I'm beginning to see the issue here. It's possible to end the game under the kickball violation. Doesn't sound right but then again, allowing Team A to retain the AP if B kicks the ball is not right either. Before we go too far here, it's unlikely that if a team is down one point and inbounding the ball that it will be a bounce pass with .01 seconds left. Knowing the players can't catch and shoot with .01, it has to be a tap so the pass will be up top.

Just my 2 cents, continue on with your debate.

Here's the part you're forgetting, ignoring, or just don't know. You have to have definite knowledge of a timer's error. Without a timer's error, there is no definite knowledge to have.

Wrong again. The timer mechanism can error, the lag time between the time it takes to start and stop the clock mechanism can be adjusted by the official if he has definite knowledge. If you know it's 5 seconds left and you have a kickball violation, the clock started and stop but now it's 2 seconds. Put 4 seconds back on the clock.

Really? What is your rules basis for saying you have definite knowledge that one second should have elapsed? Did you look at the clock when you blew your whistle? If so, you're right. Of course, this is what I said previously in this thread.

The only time you can put back on is what ran after your whistle blew.

If, in your scenario, the whistle didn't blow until 2 seconds were left, that's what you're stuck with.

BTW, if this is what you're saying, you're not really disagreeing with JR.

If you don't look at the clock after you blow the whistle, and then look up later and see it stopped at 2 seconds; you're stuck with two seconds. No definite knowledge.

And, Adam, there's this tidbit:

I keep telling you guys, you don't have to be that damn precise. Common sense it or old school it. If there's 2 seconds on the clock, and I call a violation, and it doesn't start, there's still 2 seconds. I'm not touching it, accept NBA which I don't get to work. If 1 second rolls off, I'm not touching it, but it it goes to zero and the horn sounds. I'm putting 1 second back on.

The condition is no different than if we have a game ending foul. I blow my whistle foul, and then the horn sounds. Well, we're putting time back on the clock, how much time, referees judgment. I really have no clue exactly in tenths of a second what to put back on the clock. All I know is my whistle was before the horn. I'm guesstamating .05 back.

I saw that, too.
And Rut, I'm not surprised. :)

Note to newer officials. These are the things you can only get away with if you're assigning your own rec league games; or have become a rec league legend. Don't try this in real games.

Gee, I come back and Snaqs, M&M and Old School are having one of those great interlectual debates that I've heard so much about.

You three carry on. Let me know what you come up with and we'll get the rules changed.:D

Interlectually speaking:

Shut up.

Make sure when you get one of those fancy new spelling keyboards, you get one of those newfangled calculators, too!!

:D

1) But you didn't signal to start the clock, as you were supposed to do under 5-9-4. And when you screwed up by failing to signal "time in" by tule, the timer is authorized to start the clock anyway under 9-5-1. And after the timer does <b>properly</b> start the clock by rule, there now is <b>NO</b> timing mistake to correct under 5-10-1&2. Just follow the bouncing ball.

2) Didn't work. Shoulda tried something easier....like walking on water.

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...CDE/ABACUS.GIF

He'll be able to keep track of fouls, arrows, just everything.....:D

Does it come with batteries?

I'm reminded of a debate I had with my son last night.

"Yes."
"No."
"Yes."
"No."
"Yes."
"No."
"Yes."

I won the argument, because of my kene interlectual poweress.

You keep looking at the wrong bouncing ball. I signaled for the clock to <B>stop</B> by keeping my hand in the air. I'm giving you the fact that clock (coulda, woulda, shoulda) started, but I'm saying I stopped the clock at the same time. If time runs off, I can correct for the failure to <B>stop</B> the clock.

Again, I know it's a slight stretch, but intent is a big part of figuring out the rules. If the intent of the new kicked ball interp. is to say any throw-in doesn't end on that violation, then I can't think of any situation where the clock should start even though the throw-in hasn't ended. Can you?

I hope they pick up one of them magic keyboards and get that word "legally" added to 5-9-4 by the time the books come out.

How do you think I got to lunch? :rolleyes:

1532786? What kind of sequence is that? Oh wait - could it be???? YES!! It's a METRIC ABACUS!!!!!

OK - the world is now officially coming to an end. :eek:

Okay smarta$$, why don't you tell the new officials how much time you would put back on the clock.

Only what you see tick off after you blow the whistle. If you blow your whistle, and look up and see the clock shows 2.8 seconds, you set the clock to 2.8 seconds. If you look up and see 1.2 seconds, that's what you set it to. If, by the time you look up, it shows zero, then the game is over.

Anything else is guessing, and guessing isn't allowed.

Yo, new officials......

Always put time back on the clock according to the rules. Specifically use rules 5-10-1&2. Also refer to casebook plays 5.10.1SitA,B,C&D and 5.10.2 for further information.

Ignore the RecLeague Ronny's who don't know or understand the basic rules(for <b>any</b> level), mainly because they don't own the appropriate rules and case books.

Always glad to help <b>real</b> officials, Old School.

Oh, he was talking to you? I get so confused in these discussions.

Well, I'm not quite so sure it's guessing but I can certainly count one second in my head. If, in a last second situation, I may not have the time to look up at the clock before the horn blows or it takes a second after I made the call to turn my head to the clock. Again, I can count a second in my head. And then i can divide a second in half to half a second. In any event, i know there's time left, I just don't know how much. Since we're working with a second, I don't see your point. I call it a calculated response, not a guess and I don't think either sides will argue my reasoning. However, there will be controversy if you don't put some time back on the clock. Saying you didn't see the clock so therefore the game is over is not gonna fly, not even in my so-called rec league games.

I'm just keeping it real dawg....some people don't like the truth, some people can't handle the truth. Which one or you? The truth is, refereeing is not a perfect science.

No problem JRat....

Sorry. I saw the "smart azz" and I just assumed he was talking to me.

Just kidding also.....

It's getting to be almost a full time job following this goober around and correcting his drivel, on the faint chance that some newbie might actually believe that he might even have the slightest clue about what he's discussing. I blame McGriffs for shutting down and forcing it's JMO to find new fields to conquer.

You forgot a couple. Some people can't recognize the truth. Some people can't speak the truth.

The truth is, if you try guessing on how much time to put back, you're going to be in just as much trouble as if you don't put any time back on here. And you can bet your a$$ someone will challenge your reasoning if they know the rules. I'd much rather have the rules to back up my decision than some half-a$$ logic that includes the phrase "calculated response" as a euphemism for "best guess."

In all fairness to you, it's a logical assumption. :D

He admits that he doesn't know how much time ran off, but he gonna put time back on the clock anyway. But, the time that he puts back on the clock is <b>NOT</b> a guess even though he didn't know how much time was left.

O-kaaaaay........:D

That's on p.75 of the Basketball Rulebook For Silly Monkeys, for those keeping track.

Carry on, Snaqs. I'm gonna go water my dogs.

Well, yeah.....

Sorry, my Mom's driving in from out of state, my daughter has soccer practice (against my better judgment), and in two minutes this bank I work for is going to stop paying me for today.

What, you thought I was doing this for free?

No I didn't but this does describe a lot of you. Can't recognize the truth, you hit it on the head.

And you can bet your a$$ they're going to lose that challenge. Who is going to challenge that? The coaches? Okay, let's play this out. 2 seconds left in one point game, B is down but with the ball. APTI at the baseline. TI to B3 who catches, turns and immedately shoots, and is fouled by A5. While the ball is in the air, buzzer sounds. I make the call but in order to make sure I got the right player on the foul, I stay focus on the action. Outcome: we gonna shoot 2 shots, put 1 second back on the clock.

Who's going to argue that one second? Team A cocah. I don't think so. He's not gonna say nothing because if the guy makes the FT, he's got a second to try to win the game back. What about Team B's coach. Guaranteed he ain't gonna say nothing because he's too focused on the 2 FT that if he makes he might win the game. (RECONGNIZE) But let's just say B's coach was to complain and say that you didn't look at the clock so therefore, there should be no time left because he knows the rule. What do i say, there's one second left coach. Coach repeats himself and I repeat myself, there's one second left, how far to you want to push this. Coach B; we'll take that and the 2 FT'S to potentially win the game. Let's just play it out though. Team A inboundds and scores 3 point shot to win the game. Coach B files a complain to my assigner that we guessed at the time put back on the clock. We review the tape. Tape don't lie, at the time of the foul, remember, we're talking 2 seconds on the clock, the clock shows .08 sec. left instead of the 1 sec. You see, at best I can only be off less than a second. A calculated yet educated, intellectual, interplantary, extra-ordinary response. Recongize and accept the truth young man as it will set you free.

Another point that you should recognize, coaches job is to coach, referee's job is to referee. I don't tell you how to coach, you don't tell me how much time to put back on the clock. It's my job to know and the fact that I don't have to look at it to tell is the truth. Just like if there's 3 seconds left to go in the game and the clock never starts. No worry, I can count 3 seconds in my head, we're not replaying anything. Games over.

As a practicing coach and ref, and having followed this entire thread, is it any wonder why refs get puffy when coaches get mad at refs!?

Sigh....and we just had a long thread on this exact same play also.

As usual, Old School is completely wrong. And , as usual also, he hasn't learned a damn thing from previous threads.

B3 gets 2 FT's with no time put back on the clock and no one lined up along the lanes.
- if B3 makes both FT's, the game is over with team B winning by one point.
- If B3 makes 1 out 2 FT's, the game is tied and you play OT.
- If B3 misses both FT's, the game is over with team A winning by 1 point.

See rule 5-6-2EXCEPTION3 and case book play 5.6.2SitG.

Silly freaking monkey. :rolleyes:

Don't make the mistake of equating "refs" with Old School. Never the twain shall meet.

Refs get puffy when they have to clean up after the Old Schools of the world. Coaches get mad if they do happen to run into an Old School masquerading as a ref.

Old School posts this at the bottom of every post.

Information listed here is just an opinion and should not be considered actual rule interpretation or the legal advice of this forum. Consult your rulebook if in doubt.

I hope that newer officials take it seriously!

Remind anyone else of that ol' Chuck Elias?

He always said he might come back under an assumed name. Maybe the pressure of his schooling got to him.

I haven't check in on this thread for a couple days, and after reading Old School's posts, my head is hurting. I feel like Charlie Brown.

MTD, Sr.

Maybe, but if you put 1 second up, and the kid catches and shoots to win; and then the tape shows there should have only been .1 second.... You've got rules backing to leave the time at zero. You don't have rules backing to guess.Uhm. You misspelled "guess."
I'm just saying.

All I have to say is, thank God real refs are actually accountable for their actions on the court. Wreck league "assigners" on a power trip? Well, not so much, I guess.

I hope everyone takes it seriously. I acknowledge I don't know everything and sometimes do make mistakes. At least my mistakes are for the betterment of the game, but you can see how ANY official at any given time can easily get themselves in trouble because of the many different rulesets.

Why don't you just put down something like "I've never owned a rule book in my life, I've never worked a game outside of rec leagues in my life, and I'm just guessing....so don't take anything that I post seriously"? That would be a heckuva lot more accurate summing up of your posting philosophy.

Okay JRat, you are right about this one.

However, Rule 5 Section 3a Each period ends when time expires
Exception (2) If the officials whistle sounds prior to the horn or 00:0 on the game clock, the period is not over and time must be added to the clock.

Okay, I got my codes mixed up. Now you see why I say this is so dangerous. So many different rulesets, only one game. Why can't we all just get along? No....we got to be silly freaking monkeys because we got the rule wrong. You know, there's an old saying, it takes one to know one, to recognize one, and so, I bequeath upon you today, you are sir the Master Silly Monkey.:D

You're right about rule and if I kick that in a college/hs game. I'm immediately fired. Yet another major difference in the rulesets. I do believe in college we have the ability to go to the monitor to determine how much time should be put back, if one is being used.

You know what I love about this forum?

I love that.

That's funny, I don't remember exception 2 in the NFHS rules. If you don't see the clock, then you can't put time back on it. If you can't put time back on it, then time has expired. It's not about the period being over (that won't happen until the free throws are attempted.) The rule is driven by whether or not time has expired. And again, if you don't know for sure (definite knowledge), then time has expired.

Again with the delusions of grandeur.

WTF?:confused:

There is no rule 5-3a in either the NFHS rule book or the NCAA rulebook. Are you reading out of the Basketball Rulebook For Silly Monkeys again?

Wreck league Wrules, that's WTF.

Not even in the NBA or the . . . wait for it . . . SEC rulebooks!

NBA moron, page 21 - you know they have officials too, and guess what, they have a rulebook too. One more thing, I lot more things make sense in their code then in Fed. Not all of us are sissy referee's that only referee kids and can only work out of one rulebook.

...yawnnnn...

Good morning, people.

What'd I miss?

So you're using an NBA rule to back up your statement that you can guess (that's what it is, whether you admit it or not)? They don't guess in the NBA, they have a monitor for this. Even if you have a monitor in a fed game, you can't use it. Nice try, but it doesn't help you justify guessing on how much time is left.

No, the rule is quite specific.

Time must be added back. I consider that normal, Fed. did the adnormal and went with the game is over. Why does this not surprise me? The type of people that supports this are not into making it better, but making it more complicated.

Actually, the FED made it easier, since they can't have monitors to aid. Also, remember, the FED rule is still held over from when there was a lag time element. If a second or less ticked off the clock after the official blew his whistle, by rule, the official couldn't correct it. Now, with the removal of lag time, we can correct it. However, we can only correct based on what we actually see run off the clock.
This way, there's no guess work involved, and the rule is there to back us up.

Here's where we going to have to disagree. It is not easier, perhaps more complicated but that's a matter of opinion.

Incorrect again, you really need to get your facts straight before you post. You guys get on me, perhaps you need to take a step back. You could always, and this has never changed, you could always with definte knowledge add time or remove time from the clock. Now we can debate what is definite knowledge. If i know I blew my whistle before the final horn sounded. Is that considered definite knowledge?

And if this is the case, this is where Fed. when stupid again. There rules are setup like we are children and must be told what to do and how to do it. I understand better the issue now, thanks Snaqs, but I still disagree with the conclusion. Fed. doesn't check their logic for criterism before issuing a new rule. The clock could run down to zero, or a home team staff member could just let the clock run, and the game be in the balance, and we're out there breaking up a fight, get the dust settle, there's no time left on the clock and
nothing by rule we can do about it. If i'm understanding you correctly, they took away my ability to apply logic or common sense to a timing situation. They also, if I'm understanding you correctly, don't want me making a judgment call in this situation. That's stupid and does not stand up to criterism. What a joke.....

Ronnie RecLeague is now using the NBA rulebook to answer <b>ALL</b> rules questions. Other than that, same old, same old.......

It's easier because there's no judgment involved. It may not fit "common sense", but in order to ensure uniformity of rule application, it's not as objectionable as you make it out to be.
Before you start telling me I'm wrong about a rule, you really should check with a rules book. My statement is correct.

The FED had a "lag time" rule that stated, explicitly, that the timer is given 1 second to stop the clock following an official's whistle. Anything less than that is not considered a timer's error, and only timer's errors can be corrected by the officials. Before this season, if an official blew his whistle at .9 seconds and the clock ran out; time expired.
You can disagree with the logic, the philosophy, or the wisdom of the rule (Lord knows I can sympathize with this on other rules); but you can't really disagree with the conclusion. It's pretty simple and clear, without room for judgment.

Thats why they have those critters all over the place!

:D

Don't know about where you folks are from, but criterism is illegal around these parts.
Or is that criterfilia?

(I feel a picture showing date night in Wyoming coming on...)

Well, that's only in the Fed and NCAA rulesets. I'm not sure about FIBA. But OS is very clear that NBA took criterism carefully into account when they made their rules. Let's just be sure we keep being clear about which rules we're discussing!

Juulie - you're making me feel quite sheepish. :rolleyes:

UGH!!!

dot dot dot

Well, there's definitely yet another reason I don't watch the NBA. I can't expose my children to criterism. Can't we get congress involved or something?

And, is criterism something that can be wagered on?

Well, if you're a candy a$$ bookworm official, you could say that nothing illegal or timer mistake has happen and the game is over. However, my point is, even before the rule change, if there is .9 or .09 seconds left and I blow the whistle and observed time remaining and the clock goes to 0. Yes, there is a lag time of one second but I could always put the .9 back on. Definite knowledge. This is where your arguement is wrong. You assume that the rule change last year gave us the ability to now do this. Well, again you are wrong. We could always do this, lag time or not. The rule change this past season was moot to me.

If i have definite knowledge and it is different than what the time now reads. I now have a timer mistake. The timer may not have done anything wrong, it's just the clock is displaying the wrong time. Get this, whenever I go to adjust the current time, it means the timer has made a mistake. Just like if i go over your house and i see my stolen TV, I taken it with me. Doesn't mean you actually stole it, but the TV coming back home with me. Get it.....!!!!

Again, you have definite knowledge, but there's no error so you couldn't, by rule, make that change previously.My argument isn't flawed. Your reasoning is. Most officials actually care about enforcing the rules as written. Obviously, there are exceptions. Tim Donaghy, Old School, etc. The rule change wasn't "moot" to those who actually know the rules.

And no, I'm not saying the rule change gave us the ability to do it, it gave us the authority. It's obvious that rogue officials have ability to do a lot of things they don't have authority to do. I can tell you, however, that prior to the rule change, if a HS official put .9 seconds back on the clock at the end of the game and the outcome changed as a result; he'd have been relegated to officiating under wreck wrules.

I get what you're saying. I'm only telling you that, by rule, you're wrong. What's comical to the rest of us here is that no only do you no know this; but you admittedly don't care that you're wrong. Instead of being grateful for having the correct rule pointed out to you, you dig your heals in and pound the podium harder.

It was moot to you because you didn't damnwell know or understand the old rule either. You sureashell couldn't put 0.9 seconds back on the clock. The timer was allowed 1 full second of normal reaction time to stop the clock. That means that the candy-azz bookworm officials would be right in calling the game over, but recleague morons who don't own rule books or understand the rules would put 0.9 seconds back up on the clock.

Here's 2 excerpts from the 2005-06 case book re: the old rule;

1) Casebook play 5.10.1SitB-COMMENT--<i>"Timing mistakes which may be corrected are limited to those that result from the timer's neglect to start or stop the clock as specified by the rules. The rules do NOT permit the referee to correct situations resulting in normal reaction time of the timer which results in a "lag" in stopping the clock. By interpretation, "lag or reaction" time is limited to one second when the official's signal was heard and/or seen clearly. </i>

2) Casebook play 5.10.1SitD(b)--<i>"As the official calls a three-second lane violation, he/she properly sounds the whistle and gives the signal to stop the clock. While doing so, the official is able to see the EXACT time remaining in the fourth quarter. The clock shows 5 seconds remaining. The timer stops the clock at 4 seconds.
RULING: There has been no obvious timing mistake. The timer should be able to react and stop the clock in one second when the whistle is heard and/or the signal is seen.</i>
-Iow, 4 seconds stays up on the clock.

You don't know the old rules. You don't know the new rules. Why post?:rolleyes:

This is why almost everyone here is against you. You are calling people names when they quote you the rules. You also admit you do not know, and do not follow the rules. That makes you disservice to all the newer officials and coaches that look at this site for advice. That is also, above all else, unfair to the players. And the players are the most important aspect. It is totally unfair to them if you call the game using rules and philosophies that are different than the rules used by the other officials, because then the players do not know what to expect. If you are the only official in your league, and you work every game, then great, the players know what to expect; call it however you see fit.

Up until now I have shown restraint and a great deal of patience, but now I too am joining the ranks in calling for your account to be pulled. You do not offer any value to most discussions, you have been shown to be wrong in a majority of your statements, you resort to name-calling when you have been shown to be wrong, and you show very little in real communication skills. If your intent is to learn from this site, it would be better for you to sit back and just listen. If your intent is to show off your vast officiating skills, you have missed by a wide margin. If your intent is to become a joke, you have succeeded by a wide margin.

To learn and i just did. If you don't inquire then you will never know. I guess my interpretation is to do the right thing. Leave it to the Fed. to do something completely different. I could swear that we where told at our meeting that we could always put time back on the clock if we had definite knowledge. Now, I've learned within a second, you can't. It's a good thing they changed it because most of us probably wasn't doing it anyway.

I wonder if we didn't have this happen in a state playoff game and it was challenged and learned that the official was wrong to make the change. That's a loophole, and thank god it's been corrected.

Yes, this particular "loop hole" has been changed. However, the greater point of it is still valid. Unless there is an actual timer (or mechanical) error, you can't put time on or take time off. What an individual official thinks is "the right thing" isn't relevant here if it goes against the rules. It's exactly the kind of thing the FED wants to get away from, because it inserts the official too much into the contest. It then becomes about what the official thinks rather than what the rules say.

It ain't about us.

People call me names, if you don't like it, don't dish it out and you might not get it back in return.

You got something against being honest. I think the world needs more people who are willing to speak honestly.

I am a disservice because i challenge your way of thinking. Because i try to do what's right. I might be wrong but my heart was in the right place. Plus, I have worked under other rulesets which do allow it. I tried to do what I thought was fair, you, believe it or not, is argueing for what is unfair! And I am a disservice. I am the only one that's willing to stand up and speak the truth. It's a dumb rule and needs to change.

Let's not overdo it. Unfair to the players! It's unfair if i know it's .9 seconds left and i can't correct it because of a stupid rule which goes against logic. The players may just think that I'm cheating if i know there's time left and i don't change it. Above all else, unfair to the players! You are really over the top on this one.

I kick a rule, I admit it. Now i want you to keep this in mind, I didn't kick the rule based on cheating or point difference (there was a reference made to Tim Donaghy). I kicked the rule based on what I thought was fair play.

It's only a joke to those who think it's funny. You may think that I offer no value to the discussion, but others (who don't speak as much) may disagree. Part of the problem with the NFHS rules is that there appears to be no discussion, open about there rule changes. Probably because they kick everybody out who disagrees with them. That's exactly how we end up with rules that are old and outdated, quite frankly dumb, and rule changes that makes no sense. AP arrow doesn't change after a kick ball violation. We really needed that one changed.

Since I made the reference, I'll explain. I was differentiating between officials who seem to want to officiate the game based on the rules, and officials who officiate based on their own agenda. like it or not, if you deviate from the rules because you think it's more fair that way, you're still playing by your agenda. It may be a bit more altruistic in motive than Tim Donaghy, but the end result is not much diffferent.
Nice, you disagree with their result, so they must not have listened to people who disagree with them? That's a leap of logic.

Oh, I totally disagree with that. The end result is very different. Mr. Donaghy was putting money in his pocket. I don't get any extra money for my efforts so my motives are pure, plus I sleep good at night because I thought I did the right thing. Though Tim may not have changed the winner or loser, I'm sure he was very worried about his actions, and sleep was not as good.

That statement makes you "bigger than the game". That is a sad commentary, IMO, coming from an official, Old School.

Why should I or any other coach read the rules then, if officials will just call the game in whatever rule mindset/opinion they think is fair?

The truth in your opinion. Others disagree,and they stand up and speak the truth as they see it.

What's fair is for all refs to call all games the same, and not to just apply whatever seems best at the moment.

No discussion on this board? No discssion on their own forum? No discussion in Fed Association meetings around the country every year before the rules committee meets? Which no discussions are you referring to?

Details, please? Who has the NFHS "kicked out" because of a disagreement? If you're going to make these kinds of accusations, you need to make all the facts available.

What names have I called you?

Absolutely. I agree with this statement. So, let's expand:

You have said in the past you have worked all levels below NBA, which includes grade school all the way up to NCAA D-1. Is this being honest? You have stated you have a copy of the NFHS rule book from '04-'05. Are you being honest when you say this? You have repeatedly denied being the poster known as "JMO" on the McGriff's website. Are you being honest in that assertion? You have made many statements that seem to stretch the meaning of the word "honest".

Nope, you either missed my point, or are ignoring it. It has nothing to do with challenging a way of thinking, or doing what <b>you</b> think is right, it has to do with <b>doing the right thing</b>. And that is by knowing, understanding, and enforcing the rules that are in place for that particular level of game.

I might disagree with the 3-second rule, so is it fair that I decide we aren't going to enforce that rule in the game tonight? Is it fair to the team that has practiced their offense according to the rules in place, only to let them play against a team that can benefit from being in the lane longer? Of course not! It's not my job to pick and choose which rules I like or don't like. It's my job to know, understand, and enforce the rules as written. Period. That's what speaking the truth is all about.

Actually, this is <B>exactly</B> what it's all about. It is only about the players. If you make up something that isn't in the rules, <B>you are cheating the players</B>! That's not over the top, that's a straight-up fact. If you have the rule to back up your call, you have cheated no one. You talk about "a stupid rule that goes against logic" - actually, if you know and understand the rule, it's perfectly logical. If you have definite knowledge, you can correct the time. If you don't, you can't. Logical. It's easy to rail on something you don't understand.

Ok, fine, so your heart was in the right place. But you still did a disservice to the players by not knowing the rule. You cheated one of the teams with your incorrect call. If I screw up a rule, I feel <B>bad</B> because I didn't do my job, which is knowing the rules.

We'll see.

Any basis for this comment? Do you have any information to back this up? Do you know of anyone personally that has been "kicked out" from the NFHS just becasue they disagree with some of the rules?

As is your right.Go back and read my post again. I already conceded that your motives may very well be more altruistic. Your intentions may very well be good.. If I had to guess, I'd say Donaghy's primary motive wasn't financial gain so much as to save his reputation. Whether he slept well at night isn't relevant, either. I'm willing to say categorically that there are lots of very evil people doing all sorts of nasty things that sleep perfectly well at night. Even more, there are lots of people doing wrong things with good intentions that sleep well at night. It's irrelevant to whether or not it's the right thing to do.

Motive, however, is completely irrelevant here. What's happening is an official has decided that he has good reason for deviating from established rules. Deviating from the rules and inserting your own version of what's "fair" or "right" makes the game too subjective. It's not good for the game, in spite of your repeated references to this particular delusion.

Die, thread, die!

OK, OS - here's the deal. I've been saying for years that the NF technical foul rule isn't fair because it penalizes the offense more than the defense for committing the same foul. If the offense commits a T, they lose two shots and a possession. But if the defense commits a T, they lose only two shots because they didn't have possession anyway (actually, there's a valid argument against this train of thought that I admit has its points). Why is it considered worse if a player commits a T when his team has the ball vs. when they don't? It's illogical. Either we should always go to POI after shooting Ts or give the offense an "extra next possession" when the defense commits a T. Using your logic, I'm going to ignore the actual rule and administer games this way because I believe it is "fair".

Oh yeah - I just threw away my rule books because I don't need them anymore. I'm just going to call games the way I feel is "fair". Just off the top of my head, I can envision no more tall guys being guarded by short guys and I'm going to insist all girl cheerleaders...uh...never mind.

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.

If you don't think i'm a real ref then quite talking to me.

I notice you didn't tell him to quit talking to you, you subtle rascal. ;)

I never said that. Prove it! Perhaps my words where taken out of context but i never said that.

Padgett, I want to thank you for hitting that pitch. I knew you'd take a swing at it.

Here's the proof you requested, from post 109 of this thread:
Everything in red is in direct contradiction with the rules.

A good argument could be made for what's in blue. :)