Put me down in that category too, please.:D

OK, everybody in favor of sending Nevada to OldSchool Land for starting this sh!t, raise your hand. Or any other appendage as desired. Rocky & Chuck....you guys stand on a chair so we can see you.

Hmmmmmmmm............

214 for and none against. Even Nevada voted for his own demise. He <b>is</b> smarter than I thought.

That it! Buh bye, Nevada.

Silly monkeys.......:D

I disagree. Nevada's 8th post was, as I pointed out, brief and pointed. However, it was hardly confrontational. A bit presumptuous ("likely have never…."), but it was an assumption made from reading a lot of similar posts from disgruntled athletes who merely wanted to be proved right in their indignation towards the evil referee who screwed them out of layups and free throws.

You shouldn't have to mine threads for very long if it happens "many" times. If you're referring again to Nevada's post, it is most definitely not a rhetorical jab aimed at silencing criticism. It was merely an explanation for why he had posted the rule in full.

You were making a judgment on how the attitudes you feel you have observed are "a discredit to all officials." It may not have been intended as such, but it came across as holier-than-thou and judgmental. Hence, "high horse." I'll take criticism any time, as long as it's constructive. Your post may have been cathartic, but….

True, that is the post which started it, but you have highlighted the wrong sentence. What set me off was the attitude conveyed by his first words. I've put them in blue. As I have previously responded, all that this guy cares about is declaring that he was right and the ref was wrong. He still doesn't understand the rule with any depth, and doesn't seem to care about learning that.

The purpose of this forum is to increase our rules knowledge and thus better ourselves. It is not about proving that someone was right and someone else was wrong. There is no self-improvement there. That is merely pointing out the mistakes of others. (Of course, I do that myself some. However, it is mostly done in good fun, except in the case of Old School.)

To set the record straight, it wasn't wonderful of me to smack the OP, but here is why I did so.
My VERY FIRST POST in this thread was post #6, which consisted of nothing more than simply posting last season's NFHS Interp on this issue. In response to that "Mr. Perfect" displayed his I'm-still-right-and-the-ref-is-still-wrong attitude. He didn't even bother to take into account the extra information provided or that the official may have had a good reason for granting the time-out a bit late such as was pointed out by CLH, the initial responder, when he commented that perhaps the request was properly made, but the official couldn't get play stopped quickly enough or maybe was late recognizing the request and wasn't going to penalize the team for his tardiness. (On the other hand, perhaps this guy had Old School as his referee and he really did just make up his own rule! :eek: )

Anyway, I reacted to the attitude coming from "Mr. Perfect", who I still believe doesn't have any serious rules knowledge, by demonstrating to him that he also makes his share of mistakes and shouldn't be focusing on those of others. Thus the irony of his misspelling the word "gall" was particularly sweet. ;)

The belief by the players, coaches, and spectators that it is unacceptable for the officials to be anything less than perfect has become particularly irksome to me. The human element is an integral part of sports. Mistakes will be made by all involved INCLUDING THE OFFICIALS. This needs to be accepted as part of the excitement of sporting contests. Otherwise, we could just plug the stats into a computer and award the trophies based on the print-outs.

Actually there are three: WETHER: a gelded male sheep

This interpretation seems to be in conflict with the rule to me. Perhaps someone could explain.

5-8-3: ..........such request being granted only when:

a. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
b. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

The situation in this interpretation does not match either of these.

So the guy was a d!ck. How does:

help promote a mutually respectful relationship between those indignant, disgruntled athletes and the referees? It doesn't. It makes the problem even worse.

Let's be honest, the tone of Nevada's post was meant to confront and demean the OP.

I think it only comes across as judgmental to those who might have felt that their conduct is being judged. Those attitudes and conduct that I talked about are a discredit to all officials in general, but not necessarily to any individual referee. Referees, as a group, are no different than, for instance, law enforcement officers, attorneys and other professionals in positions of responsibility and authority whom the public (or the playing public) public expect to take the high road. These professions suffer from the "bad apple" analogy when the behavior of some within their ranks is less than appropriate.

I recently heard (I don't remember where) a father telling his teenage daughter that it's important to do the right thing; but what's most important is to do so when the right thing is not necessarily the easiest or most comfortable thing to do. As it relates to this conversation, it may be harder to just dismiss less then constructive criticism; but in the long run wouldn't that be better than engaging in a protracted pi$$ing, the end result of which just adds to an already negative opinion that one may have of officials, an opinion and experience he is likely to share, undoubtedly leaving out his own negative conduct. Granted, there may be some personal satisfaction in engaging somebody like Todd Pen, but it certainly doesn't do anything for officials as a group.

Completely understood. But really, what you're saying when all the fluff is boiled away, is that you were offended by what he said. He was a d!ck so you became an even bigger d!ck. Not to mention that you took advantage of what is probably an inferior mind.

My whole point was, and still is, the conduct and behavior of a few negatively reflect upon the group of a whole; whether that conduct is broadcast via an Internet forum or if it is said in a small gym. People see it, hear it and repeat it.

Should we, as officials care? I think so, but other will undoubtedly have a different opinion.

In the case play that Nevada quoted, the interp is that the throw-in doesn't start until the ref has started the count. The way it's written, it sounds as though someone has the ball, so the throw-in has started. But in reality, it's very likely that the request, and the scooping up of the ball and the heading for the endline happened nearly simultaneously, and all that just a fraction of a second after the ball fell through the net. So since the ref hasn't started counting yet, the throw-in hasn't started, and the TO request can still be granted. Especially if the total amount of time between the ball falling into the basket and the whistle is less than a second, so that the ref can legitimately say that the requiest happened before the ball became live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
This interpretation seems to be in conflict with the rule to me. Perhaps someone could explain.

5-8-3: ..........such request being granted only when:

a. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
b. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

The situation in this interpretation does not match either of these.







But.....

6-1-2 tells us that the ball becomes live when ".....on a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower."

4-42-3 tells us: The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.

4-4-7 tells us: The ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after after a goal.

The word available indicates that the count could start even before being touched.....and in the interpretation "B1.....secures the ball and begins heading toward the end line...." In this case the ball is past the point of being available, is it not? This situation insinuates that the count does not start until B1 steps out of bounds with the ball. If this were the case, in a last second situation if team A has no time out, B1 could kill additional time (you tell me how much) by delaying stepping out of bounds.

nevadaref a great offical
 

todd pen....apr 2006...total posts 5

nevadaref...nov 2002...total posts 5285

who contributes more to this forum ?

who has more rules knowledge?

there is a small group of officals on this forum who really add to this forum day in and day out...and by far the explainations by nevadaref has helped many on this forum to become better officals...

Well, according to that logic.......

Old School....nov 2006....total posts 924

cloverdale.....jan 2004.....total posts 107

who contributes more to this forum?

who has more rules knowledge?

You're right in all cases. And in general, once someone has picked up the ball, I won't grant a TO.

However, in the case cited by Nevada, the casebook specifically says that beginning the count is part of the definition of when the throw-in begins. I think it's a bad case to put in the case book because it doesn't really say how quickly all those actions happened. And I think the case book should say "the ball is available." Period. The ref should have started the count and it doesn't need to be said.

In the stalling situation you're talking about, the count should have already begun if the ball is on the floor and no one is picking it up. In that case, it's available. We've argued about these cases before, and there's no clear answer as to exactly when to start the count, but clearly, if they're trying to stall, the count is the remedy.

In the OP, the ref clearly goofed. Nevada's trying to justify the ref by saying the count might not have begun yet, so the throw-in hadn't begun, but I don't buy it.

I'm not saying whether that's what Nevada's trying to do; I didn't read it that close. (Sorry, Nevada.)
I will, however, agree that it is likely this ref goofed if the explanation he gave the OP is accurately reflected in this thread. From what it looks like, if the count hadn't started, it should have. Regardless, it looks like the ref involved understood the rule even less than the OP; who had a basic understanding at the very least.
And how many of us actually start a count when the thrower simply sets his foot down OOB and releases the pass a split second later? It's sort of an implied count, IMO, when it happens that quickly.

Right. I agree. And the ref should not have granted the TO once the opponent had taken the ball oob even if the count wasn't begun, which it should have been, even if not visual.

The ball is "available" if B1 is in position to make a throw-in or reasonably could be expected to be in such a position (and, yes, that requires some judgment).

The ball isn't "available" just because B1 has the ball -- if they are still heading out of bounds, then they can't yet make a throw in, so the ball is (usually) not available. If B1 is dealying, then the ball could well be avaialble -- they had reasonable time to get the ball out of bounds.

Similarly, the ball might be "available" even if B1 hasn't touched the ball -- if the ball is sitting outside the end-line, and B1 is delaying touching the ball, the official might judge that the B1 (or any B player) could reasonably be expected to have retrieved the ball and started the count.