New Rule

[Nevadaref]

LOCK IT NOW!!!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

LOCK IT NOW!!!

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

MTD, Sr.

[BktBallRef]

Remove user from ignore list
Old School

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

MTD, Sr.

Maybe Juulie has to be the one to ask.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Maybe Juulie has to be the one to ask.

OKay, I'm asking!

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

[BLydic]

It's beyond time to lock it down.

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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".

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...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

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...

Mark:

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

MTD, Sr.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Motive, however, is completely irrelevant here. What's happening is an official has decided that he has good reason for deviating from established rules.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But you completely missed Mark's entire point, which is that good officials call the rule correctly, even when they disagree with the rule.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

The truth is, how can i deviate from a rule I never knew.

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."

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

3. Doing the right thing for wrong motives.

Example of #3: Becoming a basketball official because you think the cheerleaders are hot.

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.
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.