Stick 'em or not?

[Scrapper1]

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The rule on intentional fouls for a defender going OOB and fouling an opponent on a throw-in is preventive!

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

Aamof, you can also say that every 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]

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 all instituted to try 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 EXTRA penalty(second shot maybe + possession) for fouling a thrower OOB isn't preventive in nature?

[Jurassic Referee]

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 wasn't 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]

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]

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]

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?

Coulda fooled me.

Uh, yeah. I noticed.

I thought that they were all instituted to try 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]

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]

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]

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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



please please please please

[rainmaker]

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.

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?

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.