The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Stick 'em or not? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/36963-stick-em-not.html)

Scrapper1 Tue Aug 14, 2007 05:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty
You can only try to help prevent players from committing infractions - you cannot prevent them from doing anything.

So what would you like to call it? "Trying to helping preventing officiating"? Jeez.

If my voice makes a light bulb go on over a kid's head, that's preventive. If my voice doesn't help and the kid commits the infraction, then it's not preventive and I have to go to the penalty.

The penalty is NEVER preventive, because it's applied AFTER the infraction. If you PREVENT the infraction, you don't need the penalty.

Writing a speeding ticket is not preventive law enforcement. A state trooper driving in the middle lane at 65 mph is preventive law enforcement. Just by being there, s/he is preventing most people from speeding.

Scrapper1 Tue Aug 14, 2007 05:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
The rule on intentional fouls for a defender going OOB and fouling an opponent on a throw-in is </b>preventive</b>!

This is simply wrong. I can't even argue about it anymore. It's so obviously wrong. :(

Quote:

Aamof, you can also say that <b>every</b> rule in the book is preventive in nature.
This is so ridiculous, you should've put "A wise man once said" in front of it.

Jurassic Referee Tue Aug 14, 2007 05:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

2) The penalty is NEVER preventive, because it's applied AFTER the infraction.

2) If you PREVENT the infraction, you don't need the penalty.

1) Does that mean that none of the penalties in the book are preventive in nature? Coulda fooled me. I thought that they were <b>all</b> instituted to <b>try</b> to prevent a specific act.

2) And if you don't prevent the infraction, how can it be "preventive"?

Are you really saying that, in the play being discussed, instituting an expanded penalty to a normal live ball foul by adding an <b>EXTRA</b> penalty(second shot maybe + possession) for fouling a thrower OOB isn't preventive in nature?

Jurassic Referee Tue Aug 14, 2007 05:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
This is so ridiculous, you should've put "A wise man once said" in front of it.

Say what?

Name me one rule...any rule....in the current FED or NCAA rule book that <b>wasn't</b> put in place to prevent players, coaches, bench personnel, etc. from performing the applicable act associated with that rule. The rules say "don't do that, and if you do, you'll be penalized".

Smitty Tue Aug 14, 2007 05:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
If my voice makes a light bulb go on over a kid's head, that's preventive. If my voice doesn't help and the kid commits the infraction, then it's not preventive and I have to go to the penalty.

The penalty is NEVER preventive

Now you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you possibly say with any certainty that knowing the penalty for an act doesn't prevent a kid from performing an illegal act? You're saying that it's not possible that a kid can stop from doing something illegal because he knows he might get penalized for it? How is that not preventative?

You are being silly.

mbyron Tue Aug 14, 2007 07:15pm

This is a simple "type/token" confusion.

(1) Penalties are in the rule book to prevent certain types of act.

(2) Imposing a penalty for a foul or violation obviously cannot prevent the token (or instance) that one whistled.

The truth of (2) does not undercut the truth of (1).

The idea of such preventive officiating as "get out of the middle!" depends on the idea in (1).

Scrapper1 Tue Aug 14, 2007 07:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
1) Does that mean that none of the penalties in the book are preventive in nature?

That's what it means. Penalties are applied AFTER the infraction has occurred. If it comes AFTER, then by definition, it didn't PREVENT it. Is this really that complicated? :confused:

Quote:

Coulda fooled me.
Uh, yeah. I noticed.

Quote:

I thought that they were <b>all</b> instituted to <b>try</b> to prevent a specific act.
No. That's where you're exactly wrong. They were instituted to tell you what to do when somebody actually DOES something wrong; not to PREVENT the wrong action. The penalty in itself ASSUMES that the wrong action has been committed.

Good grief. Those of you who are fighting this are simply being difficult. I'm done with this thread.

Dan_ref Tue Aug 14, 2007 07:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
The penalty is NEVER preventive, because it's applied AFTER the infraction. If you PREVENT the infraction, you don't need the penalty.

Writing a speeding ticket is not preventive law enforcement. A state trooper driving in the middle lane at 65 mph is preventive law enforcement. Just by being there, s/he is preventing most people from speeding.

Wellll....neither writing the speeding ticket nor the trooper being in sight is preventative. What is preventative is the threat of the penalty (a $$$ fine and points and increased insurance rates) that comes after the trooper writes the ticket. The penalty is what makes real the preventative threat.

THAT's what is preventative. If it wasn't for the threat of a penalty I would roll down my window and throw my beer can at the trooper as I sped by him.

As for the little bulb you turn on for the player...there's another word for that: coaching.

Adam Tue Aug 14, 2007 07:39pm

The penalties in force are what we like to call "deterrents." Deterrents are, by nature, preventative. The intentional foul is a deterrent. The penalties are increased from standard personal fouls because the rules committee wants to deter players from doing things like reaching across the OOB line and fouling the thrower.

I can see how maybe the penalties for traveling, personal fouls, and backcourt violations might not be considered preventative deterrents. TFs and IFs, however, must be considered preventative deterrents.

Jurassic Referee Tue Aug 14, 2007 07:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Wellll....neither writing the speeding ticket nor the trooper being in sight is preventative. What is preventative is the threat of the penalty (a $$$ fine and points and increased insurance rates) that comes after the trooper writes the ticket. The penalty is what makes real the preventative threat.

THAT's what is preventative. If it wasn't for the threat of a penalty I would roll down my window and throw my beer can at the trooper as I sped by him.

As for the little bulb you turn on for the player...there's another word for that: coaching.

Geeze, now you're being difficult too. Tsk, tsk.

The bright side is that it looks like we've chased Skippy back to the Volleyball forum where he belongs.:D

Dan_ref Tue Aug 14, 2007 07:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Geeze, now you're being difficult too. Tsk, tsk.

Geeze, think I'll get kicked out of the clique?

http://eieiofootball.com/uploaded_im...dog-790261.gif

please please please please

rainmaker Tue Aug 14, 2007 09:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
So what would you like to call it? "Trying to helping preventing officiating"? Jeez.

If my voice makes a light bulb go on over a kid's head, that's preventive. If my voice doesn't help and the kid commits the infraction, then it's not preventive and I have to go to the penalty.

The penalty is NEVER preventive, because it's applied AFTER the infraction. If you PREVENT the infraction, you don't need the penalty.

Writing a speeding ticket is not preventive law enforcement. A state trooper driving in the middle lane at 65 mph is preventive law enforcement. Just by being there, s/he is preventing most people from speeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
This is a simple "type/token" confusion.

(1) Penalties are in the rule book to prevent certain types of act.

(2) Imposing a penalty for a foul or violation obviously cannot prevent the token (or instance) that one whistled.

The truth of (2) does not undercut the truth of (1).

The idea of such preventive officiating as "get out of the middle!" depends on the idea in (1).

What are you guys, a couple of philosophy professors? You're making it way too complicated. If you yell at the players, they either don't do the dirty, or they do. If they do, you penalize; if they don't, you let them play on. Who cares what the durn words are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Geeze, think I'll get kicked out of the clique?

Well, duh, of course not. You've got yourself a lifetime membership just by being so difficult all the time.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1