Bounce pass to self

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I can tell you what he'll say, but I'll e-mail him anyway. ALthough if I get a lousy schedule, Nev, I'm moving to your area and I expect you to make up the difference!

What he'll say is that it isn't the push itself and that the wording is a little misleading. But I"ll let you know when I get a response.

Please do, Juulie. For the record, I believe that Howard was thinking in the general case, as JR has been, and phrased his answer for that. (That general case being that it is NOT clear what the player intented in sending the ball to the floor.)
However, the question under discussion as posed by just another ref which you sent to Howard was specifically written in the narrow sense (It is obvious that the player's action is the start of a dribble.) as is the above case play.

[just another ref]

I posted the case in question 4 or 5 pages ago and it got very little attention.
I thought at the time it was the definitive play that I was looking for. I don't understand what part of it could be called misleading or poorly worded.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

However, the question under discussion as posed by just another ref which you sent to Howard was specifically written in the narrow sense (It is obvious that the player's action is the start of a dribble.) as is the above case play.

I just don't agree that it's as obvious in the play under discussion as it is in the case play. I also don't agree that the wording is clearly intended to cover any release of the ball toward the floor as a dribble. I also don't agree that Howard was discussing the general sense. I sent him a specific play. He answered it specifically. He's a pretty smart guy, and he knows the difference between specific and general.

Jurassic, I'm not so sure this is nonsense. I know a lot of the stuff on this thread is worthless, but this discussion is interesting. It points out that we can't rely on what seems like common sense. What seems so obvious to you and me is as clear as mud to Nevada and JAR, and other rules are equally ambiguous.

Officials in all sports need to learn to understand and follow the principles of submission (to how the rules tell us to call the game) and also of adaptation (to how things are in our areas). (Hmmm... I smell article...) It's possible that in JAR's association everyone calls things this way. Even if it's the only county in all of the Western Hemisphere that interprets it this way, it is how JAR should call it. Of course, he shouldn't be telling us that we're all wrong and he's right.

But it is interesting to look closely at the rules, to see the various interpretations of the various words, and to try to come to some agreement with each other about how to call the play. Words are the only tools we have, yet they can be so difficult. I'm intrigued.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Jurassic, I'm not so sure this is nonsense

2)Hmmm... I smell article.

The first page or two wasn't. The last 10 are absolutely ridiculous. The premise being argued is that passes or fumbles don't exist as per limited rules usage that ignores other similar rules language. Jmo but common sense seems to have flown out the damn window. This is nothing but a fairly easy, standard call being made difficult for no good reason.

2) Great. That'll cut the arguing to zero. Of course, if you use any of the thoughts or ideas from any of the posters in this thread, you'll give them the usual attribution found over there. Right?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Great. That'll cut the arguing to zero. Of course, if you use any of the thoughts or ideas from any of the posters in this thread, you'll give them the usual attribution found over there. Right?

The real question is, who will we get to play the part of JR in the movie version?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The real question is, who will we get to play the part of JR in the movie version?

Top candidates so far:

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The real question is, who will we get to play the part of JR in the movie version?

How about this guy? Of course, JR would be in a "Lady Ram" uniform.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

How about this guy? Of course, JR would be in a "Lady Ram" uniform.

What was I thinking? Of course Deibler is the right answer!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

How about this guy? Of course, JR would be in a "Lady Ram" uniform.

I'm thinking about going out on Halloween in a Jon Deibler costume. They're already out at your local WalMart. Aamof, Deibler and SpongeBob SquarePants are running almost neck to neck as #1 in retail sales, with Jon currently holding a slight advantage.

It's true, it's true........