Throw-in/Traveling

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mick

If they secure the ball on their side, you won't let them roll to their back ?
I bet you will.

In most cases yes...since that will probably occur at the same time and be part of their momentum in getting to the ball. Once they've settled on that side however and are not moving, a change to a different surface will be a travel.

There is no precise definition of what "over" is. In my mind, it doesn't take 180 degrees to be "over".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now it seems that I have to turn my attention to this individual.


Come on Camron. Have you read the rest of this thread?

Yep. An incorrect position posted 50 times is no more correct than 10 times.

Show me anywhere that discusses how far over is over. Can't do it can you.

The whole intent is that a player on the ground in one position is not allowed to change positions for a better advantage. From back to side allows them to protect the ball much better since they can effectively cover it up in their belly...or make a better pass. The only actions we have that are allow once they get the ball on the ground is to sit up...but only if they are on their back.

What if the player were on their side? You suggest they could roll to their back. What then? If they're on their back, they could sit up. So, they can go from side to sitting, but only if they first go to their back? If they go directly, it's a travel??? That link of logic would suggest they could go from back to belly as long as they stopped on thier side for a moment.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is more important that you are willing to entertain new ideas and aren't closed off to considering things in a different light. That is the path to improvement. So many people are convinced that the way that they have always done it is the right way and the only way. They come up with certain standards on their own, which aren't solidly grounded in the rules, and then hold on to them tenaciously when confronted by another point of view simply because this has been their way of thinking for such a long time. It is often hard to allow oneself to let go of previously held convictions and learn new ideas.

Then there are people who have carefully considered several points of view, read the books, discussed them carefully with authoritative interpreters, observe various situations, discuss some more, and then come to a conclusion as to what is the best way to handle things. SOmetimes those people start to insist they are right..... because they are!! THey decide not to waste their time listening to lots of alternate points of view because they actually do know what the right thing is to do, and there's no point listening to a lot of pointless drivel. Hhhmmmmm,,,,

As long as we're not pointing fingers at any one in particular, it's okay to be offensive? Is that it, Nevada?

[Nevadaref]

What are you talking about?

I say some nice words about the man having an open mind and being willing to spend some time thinking about the issue, whether or not he eventually agrees with my take on the rule, and you go off about being offensive.

Get Padgett to give you some of his meds and CHILL OUT!!!

The only people in officiating who I find offensive are those who continue to make the same errors over and over, yet never learn from them.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What are you talking about?

I say some nice words about the man having an open mind and being willing to spend some time thinking about the issue, whether or not he eventually agrees with my take on the rule, and you go off about being offensive.

Get Padgett to give you some of his meds and CHILL OUT!!!

The only people in officiating who I find offensive are those who continue to make the same errors over and over, yet never learn from them.

Whenyou spend 10 pages on one thread and 8 pages on another telling people they're wrong, it sounds as though you're including them in this little summary of people you find offensive.

People who "don't have the courage to point out case plays to their rules interpreters." People who don't agree with your understanding of normal English words. People who don't ignore things that you ignore. People that don't place as much emphasis on the same things you do.

People who don't agree with your arcane interps of the rules. And thus keep making the same errors over and over, yet never learn to do it "correctly," namely your way. If that's NOT how you feel, you need to change your tune. It sounds as though you are offended by anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[Nevadaref]

Admit it, you're just amped up because I criticized Howard's take on a play.

I get touchy myself sometimes.
I get annoyed when I see people post things such as in the "roll over" discussion in the traveling thread which are purely personal opinions and do not fit within the rules as written because I'm tired of working games with people who call it that way. I've had partners make these calls from the other side of the court when I'm standing right in front of the play.

Furthermore, for an official to say or write these things only reinforces the myths of the game, makes it harder to educate the players and coaches properly, and encourages the spectators to holler for these calls because that's what they've seen some other official call.

Yes, I get cranky every now and then just as the next guy. Yes, I'm opinionated and am not afraid to say what I believe. That's also not a great difference from anyone else on this board. While I'm sometimes sarcastic, biting, and have on occasion even been rude to some posters, I don't strive to generally treat people that way nor have I ever purposely tried to be offensive to you. In fact, I hold a healthy respect for you.

The bottom line is that you bristled when I asked if you had "the courage" to ask Howard about the case book play that contradicts him. Well phrasing it that way was certainly less than kind, but the point made remains.
During your phone conversation did you, in fact, inquire about the play and point out that it says something directly contrary to his answer or did you just let it go? Since the comment upset you so much, I strongly suspect that the truth is that you didn't ask.

Whether you chose not to pose this question because you don't wish to get on his bad side as he is a big poobah in your area, simply didn't think of the case play during your conversation, or for some other reason or no particular reason at all doesn't really matter.

If you didn't ask about it and are unwilling to, then just say so. It's no big deal. Since you were kind enough to post an email for Howard on the forum, perhaps I'll just ask him myself and then post the response. Afterall, his personal affection doesn't matter to me. I'm only concerned with learning the truth about how the NFHS wants this play officiated.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I say some nice words about the man having an open mind and being willing to spend some time thinking about the issue, whether or not he eventually agrees with my take on the rule, and you go off about being offensive.

The only people in officiating who I find offensive are those who continue to make the same errors over and over, yet never learn from them.

Iow, you find offensive anyone who disagrees with you, Junior.

It's lonely at the top, isn't it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The bottom line is that you bristled when I asked if you had "the courage" to ask Howard about the case book play that contradicts him. Well phrasing it that way was certainly less than kind, but the point made remains.
During your phone conversation did you, in fact, inquire about the play and point out that it says something directly contrary to his answer or did you just let it go? Since the comment upset you so much, I strongly suspect that the truth is that you didn't ask.

Whether you chose not to pose this question because you don't wish to get on his bad side as he is a big poobah in your area, simply didn't think of the case play during your conversation, or for some other reason or no particular reason at all doesn't really matter.

If you didn't ask about it and are unwilling to, then just say so. It's no big deal. Since you were kind enough to post an email for Howard on the forum, perhaps I'll just ask him myself and then post the response. Afterall, his personal affection doesn't matter to me. I'm only concerned with learning the truth about how the NFHS wants this play officiated.

Have you contacted your own state interpreter yet, Junior? On both the roll-over and double-dribble threads?

When you do, please direct them to the appropriate threads so that he can get all total viewpoints before answering. Please let us know his response....and how we may contact him also to ask further questions.

[JRutledge]

Wow!!!

Someone has a big inflated ego about their opinion on officiating. I did not realize I had to do everything to what Nevada wants or thinks. Thank you for letting me know this way of thinking.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Iow, you find offensive anyone who disagrees with you, Junior.

It's lonely at the top, isn't it?

Something about the pot and the kettle comes to mind...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Have you contacted your own state interpreter yet, Junior? On both the roll-over and double-dribble threads?

When you do, please direct them to the appropriate threads so that he can get all total viewpoints before answering. Please let us know his response....and how we may contact him also to ask further questions.

No, I have not contacted him yet about either play. Why not? Because he is actually on the current NFHS rules committee. So if the NFHS releases something about these situations, then I'll know his take. If the NFHS doesn't put out anything, then his opinion is just that of another HS official in NV.

If you wish to contact him, his name and picture appear in the front of the 2007-08 NFHS rules book. With that info it's not that hard to do an internet search for his email or look him up on the NV website.

[RookieDude]

I remember being taught, in our First Aid class, that anytime you had an injured individual lying on their back...

you should "roll them over" on their side so that the vomit, blood, etc. can escape to prevent them from choking to death.

Does this have anything to do with the discussion?

More "roll over" stuff...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PXvg8uCy0KE

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, I have not contacted him yet about either play. Why not? Because he is actually on the current NFHS rules committee. So if the NFHS releases something about these situations, then I'll know his take. If the NFHS doesn't put out anything, then his opinion is just that of another HS official in NV.

I get it. He's only on the current FED rules committee and he's only your state interpreter. Sooooooooo......... there's no reason to ask him because your opinion is more valid anyway than any old rules committee member/state interpreter. After all, his opinion is only the same as a first year official in Nevada.

Now who was it that admonished Rainmaker above by stating "If you didn't ask about it and are unwilling to, just say so."?

Iirc someone also posted above "I'm only concerned with learning the truth about how the NFHS wants this play officiated".

And, of course this person whose knowledge is unsurpassed, as we've been told, also pontificated "It is important that you are willing to entertain new ideas and aren't closed off to considering things in a different light. That is the path to improvement. So many people are convinced that the way that they have always done it is the right way and the only way. They come up with certain standards on their own, which aren't solidly grounded in the rules then hold onto them tremendously when confronted.by another point of view simply because that has been their way of thinking for such a long time.It is often hard to let go of previously held convictions and learn new ones." Boy, I'll bet the all-knowing sage that wrote that would never dream of NOT contacting an NFHS official rules source to get a ruling on something being disputed.

Iow, do as I say, not as I do. For some reason, you remind me of Reggie Jackson and his expounding of the "Magnitude of Me". The only difference is that you're much more verbose than Reggie.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Iow, do as I say, not as I do. For some reason, you remind me of Reggie Jackson and his expounding of the "Magnitude of Me". The only difference is that you're much more verbose than Reggie.

Didn't Reggie perform in the clutch though?

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Didn't Reggie perform in the clutch though?

Sure did. That's why he deserved to be called "Mr. October", like him or not.

George Steinbrenner finally said about 20 years after the fact that unloading Reggie was the worst mistake that he ever made as the Yankees owner. In light of his many mistakes, that was a heckuva statement to make.

Nevada is no Reggie.