New interps Sitch # 10
 

blindzebra posted

I recall a very long and heated thread where only BBref and I agreed that team A catching a ball deflected into their back court but not yet landing in the back court was a violation on team A...seems situation 10 confirms us being correct.

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

I don't really like it, but at least it's consistent with how we call out of bounds violations. If you're standing out of bounds and catch the ball, you caused it to go out. If you let it bounce out of bounds and then catch it, you haven't done anything illegal. Same principle in the backcourt. Makes sense.

The thing that clears it up for me is. TEAM B never gained control.

Well, this is if it hits in frontcourt after the deflection, right?

What has that got to do with the situation?

I don't think so, I believe they added that to make it clear that the ball hadn't gained back court status by bouncing in the BC.

Why would it bouncing in the FC make a difference? Team A had control, the ball has FC status until it touches or is touched in the BC.

Team Control is what I'm looking it. Correct me if I did not comprehend the situation properly. Team A haS control in the FC. There was a pass between A1 AND A2 B deflects the pass towards it own goal but before the ball touches B FC A2 catches the pass. B never establish team control.

This flies COMPLETELY in the face of the rule. What happened the requirement that team A be the last to touch "before" going into the backcourt? This case completely fails that criteria.

I think they've got a bogus interp here....unless they're changing yet another longstanding rule by "interpretation".

I completely agree. This is really an interpretation that does not make sense considering what the actual rule is.

It sounds like someone just wanted to put their stamp on the new rule by creating an interpretation that made them feel important.

Peace

Camron,
I don't care for the ruling either, but what the NFHS is saying is that A2 was the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status and is also the first to touch the ball once it gains backcourt status.

Personally, I think that A2 should only be considered to be the first to touch it in the backcourt, not also the last to touch for frontcourt purposes.

New play: A3 in his backcourt throws a pass towards A4 who is standing in the frontcourt. B5 jumps from his backcourt and deflects the pass. The ball remains in the air, never touching the court as it rebounds directly to A3 who catches it while standing in the same location in his backcourt.
According to the new interp, this is a backcourt violation. That doesn't mesh with the intent of the rule or case book play 9.9.1 Sit C. :(

Or someone's been calling it wrong for 30 years and just found out but, rather than admit error, they pushed an interpretation to match what they thought it had been.

I strongly suspect we'll see a correction issued on this one.

But as I pointed out, it matches exactly the criteria for the ball gaining out of bounds status. If you're standing out of bounds and you catch the ball, then you caused the ball to be out of bounds.

If you're standing in the backcourt and you catch a ball from the frontcourt, then you caused the ball to be in the backcourt.

I don't really like it either, but I can see the justification.

I disagree with you there. I do not think for a second that they will change. The typical NF modus operandi is to just sit on the ruling and change it in the future. I would be shocked if they came back with a different ruling.

Peace

I just received the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook and I want to know how this play is any different than the ruling the NF gives on page 111.

This play has A4 who is the thrower during a throw-in passes the ball to A10 who is standing the FC. The throw-in pass bounces off of A10 and goes into the BC. According to this ruling, this is not a BC violation because there was no team control established

Peace

Sit 10 says a pass in the front court, not a throw-in pass from the frontcourt, so team control was established before the pass.

As Tony and I said way back when A2 simultaneously was the last to touch/ first to touch because the ball still had FC status.

But the rules about BC/FC also include a last to touch item which isn't part of the oob thing. Regardless of who touched it last, if you're standing on the boundary line when you touch the ball, then you've conferred your oob status onto the ball. But with BC, it only matters if your team was also the last to touch in FC, which in the case given Team A wasn't. B deflected it. I just don't understand what the heck they're playing at.

And the fact that B never gains team control is completely irrelevant, truerookie.

Okay, so I'm sitting here thinking and thinking and thinking about this. I think I see the logic now.

The logic is that A2 (standing in the back court, remember) is the last to touch before the ball attains BC status?? But then also the first to touch as BC status is conferred? That's just plain weird. There's no way I could ever, ever, ever explain that to a coach. And since the wateringhole wisdom is "Don't call it if you can't explain it", does that mean that for all practical purposes, this will never get called? I mean in reality, even if I'm right in calling it, if I'm the only one in my entire association, is it right?

WOW.

Think about the ball the same way you explain a player in the air...the ball is where it was until it gets where it's going.

The ball is in the FC until it hits in the BC, so when team A touches it they touch it with FC status and give it BC status at the same time...thus last to touch/first to touch.

It makes perfect sense to me, as it did several months ago when that is exactly what Tony and I said.

9-9-1: .......if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.


I'm not a grammar expert, but "in the frontcourt" is a prepositional phrase. Does this phrase modify he/she or a teammate, or does it modify ball? If the former is true, it flatly doesn't work. The player in question was not "in the frontcourt" when he/she touched the ball. If it modifies ball, it is a bit more difficult. True, the ball still had frontcourt status and was still in team A control. But, your explanation that the touch with FC status giving it BC status "at the same time" is contradicted by the adverb "before" which describes when this must take place in relation to the touch/violation in the backcourt.

If this clears it up for anybody, then you can explain it to me.:D

So what you're saying is that if B in FC tips it and then it bounces in BC and THEN A touches or gets in BC, no violation?

...B in BC tips it and then A touches or gets in BC, no violation?


BUT

...B in FC tips and then ball passes directly to A in BC who touches or gets, that's the violation?

Not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to clarify.

That is exactly what the interp is saying, the ball needs to gain BC status before team A touches it.

Okay, well, I guess I see what they're saying. I just can't imagine trying to explain it to coaches. It's just too convoluted and complicated, and goes against what seems like the clear meaning of "last to touch". I really hope someone will knock some sense into the Rules Committee (like the V-8 ads!) and give us an interp we can use in the real world. Generally, I can see where their interps are coming from, and what the underlying principles are, but this is just too arcane. Makes the Infield Fly Rule look like a kindergarten game.

Coach: Why?

You: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: Oh, okay.

Doesn't sound so hard to explain to me.;)

Well then you're dealing with some exceptional coaches. This is more like my experience.

Coach: What the....?? No way! Weren't you looking?? B clearly touched it. I can't believe you didn't seen that.

Me: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: Oh, for Pete's sake, this is high school ball. You can't seriously expect these kids to understand rules like that. I don't think that's even in there. You just really need to get with someone to explain it to you. No one else ever calls it that way [which btw is true!] and you're reading something in there that just isn't part of the rule.

Me: Coach, this is the approved interpretation which I know is correct. Others have to call what they see, but I know I'm right about this.

Coach: (looking at opposing coach) Have you ever heard of this before? I didn't think so. It's bizarre. Of all the weird, twisted interpretations... I'm gonna call your assignor and get this straightened out, you just don't get it.

Me: Thank you coach, now let's get back to the game.

Coach: mumble, mumble, mumble

Or even,

Coach: What!?!? B touched it! Didn't you see that??

Me: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: But B touched it! what's going on here? How can you call that?

Me: Coach, the ball didn't have BC status before your player touched it.

Coach: That's just mumbo-jumbo. You're trying to make an excuse because you weren't really looking. It's ridiculous. That was not a violation! I've studied the rules for years and you can't call that!! What's going on here?

Me: Coach, we're going on with the game now. Please remember your box.

Coach: Don't try to brush me off!! You can't even explain that call! It's just too awful for words! Why can't you even tell me what she did wrong?

Me: Coach, I've heard enough. Get back to the bench and your players.

Coach: You're terrible!! You have no clue!! Why isn't your partner bailing you out here?!?! You aren't even listening!!

Me: (thinking, 'Please don't make me do this') Whack!

Perhaps it's your delivery?

Sometimes it isn't what you say, it's how you say it...if it's matter of fact, this is gospel, take it to the bank, in your tone very rarely will you not get an oh, okay.

It's like on Seinfeld when George gives Jerry advise on beating a lie detector...it's not a lie if you believe it.

I find that if I present it with confidence it pretty much ends right there.

Or even....

Me: Coach, it's a violation. I'll explain why at the next time-out or between periods.

If he doesn't want to accept that, whack.

And when you do explain it, you explain it using a simple, one-sentence statement like BZ recommended above. You say it <b>once</b> and then walk away. Iow, you explain it; you don't debate it. If the coach doesn't understand your explanation, that's his/her fault, not yours.


Way too much unnecessary talking by yourself imo, Juulie. Debating instead of quickly explaining a call is a true game interrupter. And you're also taking way too much abuse during the unnecessary talking, also imo.

Yes, everyone agrees that this player is the one who caused the ball to be OOB, but just about no one says that this player was the last one to touch the ball while inbounds.
The same should hold true for a player standing in the backcourt. He should cause the ball to be in the backcourt. He shouldn't be considered to also be the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt.


The NFHS needs to get rid of the concept of simultaneously doing two things with a single touch. The player needs to be considered to be merely the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, not both the first to do that and the last to touch in the frontcourt. Saying that it is both is just http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/bs_sign.gif

Besides according to the text of the rule the player has to be "in the frontcourt" when the last touch occurs. He clearly isn't. A player from the opposing team was the last one to meet that requirement.

This is an asinine interpretation. :mad:
How can a player be the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt, if his first and only touch is the very one which causes it to be in the backcourt. He certainly didn't do anything with the ball BEFORE then. :(

I believe that the text of the rule should be rewritten and stated terms of the status of the ball. Something akin to ...a player shall not cause the status of the ball to change from frontcourt to backcourt, if the player or a teammate was .... I'll have to think about this and work on the wording, but it seems that stating it this way would be clearer. :)

Here's how Juulie's conversation would go in our rec league:

Coach: "How can that be a violation? It was touched!"

Juulie: "Go argue with Mark."

Coach: "Oh. Never mind."


Here's an even more likely scenario:

Coach: "How can that be a violation? It was touched!"

Juulie: "Go argue with Mark."

Coach: "No thanks. I want to stay in the game (or "the league"). :D

The only problem with that is that causing the ball to go into the backcourt is not a violation....be being the team that is the last to touch before...and the first to touch after is the violatoin.

So, If I understand this correctly:

A1 is in the backcourt, near the division line. A1 attempts to throw a pass to A2 who is in frontcourt. B1, defending, is in A's frontcourt near the division line and jumps up and blocks the pass, which hits A1 on a fly who is still in backcourt.

This play would be a violation according to the way the interpretation given, correct?

Exchanges like this just serve to cement my opinion that Oregon officials take WAAAAyyyy too much crap from the coaches.

And those two things happen simultaneously in this scenario...the ball still has FC status until it touches something in the BC. So by player A running back there and catching it, thay ARE the last to touch a ball with FC status AND the first to touch the ball in the BC - all at the same time...as Scrappy-doo pointed out, it's the same as catching a deflected pass while standing oob...

This is very true. I'm in the Portland Association and completely agree with you. I myself allow too much crap. But until the powers that be, and the upper echelon of refs, in our association practice better crap management themselves, it isn't likely to change anytime soon. I am guessing that Oregon is not the only place where too much crap gets taken.

And you're not alone.....

FWIW, I think this is a bad interp. In keeping with the theme, I sincerely hope someone will get their head out, wipe the crap out of their eyes and correct it.

I know you take way more crap than we do north of the river...pretty much every time I have officiated an Oregon team that has come across the river to play one of "our" schools, I have had to T someone on the coaching staff - and they always seem so surprised...One coach several years ago didn't like an oob call one of my partners made and stands and yells "That's Bullsh!t". After I whistle and whack him, he turns to me and says "What, don't you guys give warnings first over here?" :mad: :eek: :mad: :eek:

It's a real drag that it is the way it is. But there's so much cronyism between our refs and the Varsity coaches (coaches get a vote in the state tourney selection process) that we tend to be a little gun shy to call the T. At the lower levels I don't see it being a problem as much. And if you do start calling a lot of bench Ts you get branded in a "humorous" but not so humorous way (see user Tlieb who is also from our association - guess what the T stands for). Until we get leadership that will back us up every time and be consistent throughout the whole association as far as evaluations and the process to move up in the association, I'm afraid not much will change.

Sheez, dj, that guy is pulling the wool over your eyes. No one around here will put up with that, and we don't give warnings for it either.

The problem for me is to strike the balance between "management" and "putting up with too much" between "being T-happy" or thin-skinned and being reasonably firm. I just don't get that balance very well at all.

My problem with this rule isn't just explaining it, it's that it hasn't been called this way, has it Camron? It's certainly not how it's been explained to me. I guess I'll be trying too hard to explain because I sympathize with the coaches. Yech, I say.

Oh my......

Sympathizing should never be a factor when it comes to officiating. You can sympathize, but if you let that influence how you respond to a coach, then you <b>are</b> letting your emotions become a factor.

Jmo.

I agree Juulie, anything like that would be an instantaneous T. It's probably along the lines of "no one else has ever called that" & similar statements we hear from some coaches - the only BS around is coming from them.

This interp is about the dumbest thing I have seen from NFHS in years....IMHO of course......

JR, I'm not saying it should be that way. I know it shouldn't. But emotions are always a factor for me. They just are. It's not a question of whether or not emotions are a factor, it's a matter of trying to manage that.

And just to cut short some of the obvious female/male snarking, I'd just like to point out that emotions are ALWAYS a factor for everyone in everything. I've seen a lot of refs who got themselves into serious trouble by pretending they didn't have any emotional stuff going on when in fact, there was. I've never known anyone who doesn't have emotions of some sort or other in many situations. It's just a question of not letting the emotions get the control.

But Juulie, you've worked with me. :confused:

Juulie, I'm just giving you my own personal observations, and male/female stuff isn't a part of it. I haven't seen any female/male snarking in this thread. Imo the more competent officials never(well, hardly ever, maybe) let their emotions play any part in how they officiate a game. Emotions are <b>not</b> a factor when it comes to how they handle any particular situation. It's got nothing to do with being a hardazz either. You simply react to whatever is coming at you at any particular time in a way that your training/experience tells you is the best way to react to keep the game under control and moving.

It's a question of never letting your emotions be a factor in the way that you officiate a game. And that certainly includes going out of your way to explain something just because you "sympathized" with somebody. That was my point. And it's also jmo fwiw.

Then I guess we'd better put some in.


http://www.vampwriter.com/BLOG/RitaSnark.jpg

But simultaneous is not good enough to be a violation...

They must be the last to touch it BEFORE it gains BC status.

They must also be the first to touch it AFTER it gains backcourt status.

The BEFORE requirement is where this fails. Simultaneous doesn't equal before.

And you believed him?

While what you state may happen, it is far from commonplace. In fact, I tend to observe worse coach behavior in JV games where the oficials just don't have any game managment skills or make poorly chosen calls.

I've heard "stories" about coaches that I just haven't had any issues with. I simply don't have trouble with coaches.

If it is who I think it is, he is well respected and is moving up relatively fast....passing a lot of people. The fact that he might be calling T's more than average is certainly not holding him back.



I know for a fact that our leadership has always backed up our officials. Sometimes that official may have made poor judgement but the commish doesn't ever tell the school that. It's handled internally and has the same impact as any other poor judgement would.

Your comment about evaluations and moving up, sadly, is all too commonly believed. (I NOT talking about you here, just in a general sense. In fact, this sort of attitude is not limited to officiating but is prevalent in any competative envirnment). Most people hold themselves back by trying to find what others are doing wrong rather trying to find what they are doing wrong. Sure, top officials make errors....and will continue to make errors. Everyone knows that..coaches, assignors, the officials....no one is perfect. Either they make fewer errors or the type they make are ones that all parties are more willing to accept. The job of moving up is recognizing where you fall short and addressing those areas. Part of that is accepting criticism (again, not talking about you because I know you're one to listen and want to improve). All to often critical evaluations are met with anger and disbelief. I've seen it and heard it. Too often the evaluatee just wants to be told what they're doing right, not what they need to do to get better.

Our leadership does back us up - I will agree with that. But I do hear and see mixed signals from more "veteran" referees who try and give advice. Like you say, it's just a part of being in a competitive field. Some say to be tougher - some say be more lenient. There is no firm stance on it, and that is what bothers me. But these are the same people who do the evaluations, so you do what you have to do.

I mentioned that specific person (Tlieb) because just the fact that he is labeled for handing out a lot of T's is notable in and of itself. He is a friend and is moving up quickly and I like him. I just think the nickname is looked at more unfavorably than favorably as far as what it stands for.

The evaluation process in our association is just awful. It could be fixed, but no one seems to be paying any attention to it right now. Hopefully in a few years things will change - I hear some great ideas being tossed around, so I'm hopeful.

Who do you think taught him to do that? It wasn't his Dad. :rolleyes:

If federal judges can change the laws of this country by doing that, why can't the NFHS?

Camron, the problem is that there are certain "top" (and it's interesting, isn't it that all the top folks are guys?) who simply can't believe anyone could possibly be as good as they are, and they don't even try to help. They are polite and "encouraging" to your face, but what they tell you is meaningless at best or downright unhelpful. I know you don't believe this. But the fact of the matter is, it's true. I've seen them roll their eyes behind backs, and I've had a few things said directly to my face about myself and about others. The things I'm talking about aren't meant to give the official real advice, just to get themselves away from the "plebes". Comments like, "Just keep working hard", "Well, you just have to keep watching others" and "You need to really think about your goals and dreams." How is that gonna help me get better? Or anyone? Then they say that people just don't improve enough to "keep from embarassing the association at the tournament."

Sorry, you pushed my buttons. The bare fact is that there are some terrific people in our association who really want to "give back" and help people get better. Those folks tend to move up eventually and move out. People like Lea, Spitz and Hefty. There are other helpful and encouraging folks who haven't moved out, but they tend to be busy, and aren't always available to help. A couple notable exceptions are Simshaw and Frostad. Then there are others who simply want to stand on the pedestal, and stomp on the fingers of those who are trying to climb up the mountain. I won't mention names, but I'm sure you know a few of who I mean.

I know there are those who don't move up and just complain about how it's all politics and they don't take responsibility. But some of those who complain, have a legitimate beef. I'm thinking of a particular person who has been in the association 17 years, has worked a D2 national semi and only just this year made it to a hs tournament, and then only 2A. Ya gotta admit, that doesn't look good for the assoc. And you can't say his race wasn't a factor in that issue. If the point had really been to send "only the best refs" to the tournament, and to "protect the reputation of the association" this person would have gone to 6A this year, and a certain person who went to 6A (girls) wouldn't have gone at all.

It's NOT just about being the best ref. Association politics, gender and race and other outside issues do enter the equation. There's no way you can deny it.

Simultaneous would be the meeting of BEFORE and AFTER at the same time and place...I think you're making this way more difficult than it really is...and for the record, no I didn't believe the coach after T'ing him, and yes he was ejected several minutes later for arguing the same oob call with my partner.

Only for the convenience of this rule. Nowhere else.

[quote=rainmaker]Camron, the problem is ...[\quote]

Replying in new thread so that this one might get back to the original topic...

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=38767

No...Before and After have very clear meanings.

Let's say that the very instant that the ball was touched in the backcourt was with 4:23.000 on the clock. Simultanous is anything that happens exactly at 4:23.000. Before that would be 4:22.999. If the ball gains backcourt status at 4:23.000, the player would have had to touch it no later than 4:22.999 for it to be a violation. But then, it would have gained backcourt status at 4:22.999 and the player would have had to touch it at 4:22.998....

So, the player can never touch it before it goes into the backcourt at the same time as it gains backcourt status.

It is physically impossible in this universe to, at the same time, touch the ball before you touch the ball.

Camron, I agree with you. Plus the actual text of the rule says that he has to be the last to touch the ball "in the frontcourt", not when the ball has frontcourt status. To me that means the player or his teammate would have to be "in the frontcourt" or the player has to have frontcourt status.

In this case the player has backcourt status.

Why does "in the frontcourt" have to refer to the player and not the ball?

If it does refer to the ball we still have a conflict because of the word "before."
If the player is in the backcourt he was not touched "before it went to the backcourt."

Camron - please tell me what gym in this area has a clock with a "thousands of a second" indicator. I will work to have it declared a tourist attraction.

Well, I did hear a story once about some super secret facility at the Nike complex......:D :D [/I]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust]Thanks for doing that. I approve

and I'll reply after while, when I've got some time

There can never be a firm stance on it. You're dealing with situations and personalities (coaches and officials) that are as varied as anything can be. Basically, it's an art. Those that work college for more than one assignor can tell you this. They have to change things they do from game to game to match what each assignor wants....the assignors never agree on how things should be done. The ones that can adapt from game to game to keep each assignor happy last the longest.

You might be suprised on this point!! ;) Keep your eyes open...something is coming...and soon.

Ooo, Camron, that's just plain cruel. Just plain mean and nasty. can't you spill just a little hint of detail?? Oh, wait, is Howard still reading the board?

Can you e-mail me privately?? just a little?

Juulie - please tell Howard I'd be glad to consult with him on evals. I can show him how I do it for our rec league. It involves a dart board and me keeping a list of how many diet pops each ref buys me during the season. Oh yeah, I give extra points for technicals. The rewards include not being scheduled with Bruce and/or ABC, or having to work the games of certain coaches. :p

Merri?!?!

Where are you??

Understood. I've been in 5 different associations, and the PBOA is by far the best, so I am really not unhappy with it at all. I feel like I have been treated more than fairly for my own progress in the association. It's only things like this that make it difficult to know what's really the right way to do things - the things that aren't so black and white. There's a lot of "do as I say, not as I do" advice given from some of the old guard. It makes it tough to take their advice very seriously. I know that Howard will always back me up, and that is a great feeling. You also know that I respect your opinions and appreciate your viewpoints.


That is OUTSTANDING news! I can't wait to see what they've done. Thanks for the teaser, Camron!

Smitty,

I don't think the situation is as bad as you think. I know that I try very hard to apply the rules the way they're intended and the way our commissioner wants them applied, and I think the majority of the officials in our association do the same. Are there exceptions? Yes there are, and I have seen the evidence of some of the things you described more than once, but don't think it is wide spread or prevalent.

People become officials for a variety of reasons and with different long term goals in mind - nothing wrong with that. IMHO, the goals we should all have in common are to strive to be the best we can be, and to apply the rules fairly and equally to everyone in accordance with the guidelines we're given. Those who, in the words of our commissioner "sell their soul for a bowl of porridge" do a disservice both to the sport and to the rest of us, and make it that much harder to do the job right.

I do agree that there are some problems with the evaluation system as it exists, and am looking forward to seeing the proposed changes Camron mentioned - should be interesting..........

I agree with you, Tim. And I don't mean to sound like a big grump about it. Like I said, I've been treated more than fair, and I love Howard. I had a great camp this summer, lost 40 pounds, and can't wait for the first meeting. I have never been more excited about an upcoming season.

No more being Debbie Downer for me...moving on. :)

Yea, having a last name like "Downs" can be rough!!

Attaboy! Now you've got it. Suck around. You'll progress. :D

Simultaneous, according to the venerable Mr. Webster, means "existing or occuring at the same time"...so the before and after take place at the same time in this scenario...I understand that you don't like the interp., but you really aren't giving a very good argument...the ball has frontcourt status until the moment the player catches it in the backcourt - so the two requirements happen simultaneously.

Anyway...how about them Indians??

LOL I really want to move up, but even I have my limits! ;)

Sure the ball has FC status until it is touched in the BC, but before that time that player hadn't touched it (nor had a player of the same team).

Imagine a 80,000# semi approaching an intersection with no traffic controls. The truck is going 75mph. You are in a 1,500# Yugo crossing the intersection on the perpendicular street. You are going 45mph. Do you want to cross the intersection at the same time as the semi or before/after? Go experiment if you like :D. I guarantee that you'll find that simultaneous and before don't end the same.

I actually drove a yugo. I have no problem being in the intersection wih the truck 'cause I know the yugo will go completely under the truck...and completely over Chuck.

So we're both safe

I took a Yugo for a test drive once. It was doing fine until I ran over some gum. :p

Now I drive one of those expensive British cars, a Rolls Kanardly. It rolls down one hill and kanardly get up the next. :rolleyes:

So, the question I have is:
If you're officiating the high school bass fishing tournament, and the favored team's star angler drives in a zig-zag pattern to prevent the trailing team's star driver from passing him, is he guilty of an over-and-back violation?

Wait, I think I know this one...it has something to do with the boat going over the International Date Line, right?

You're confusing it with curling. There's no 10 second time violation in bass fishing.

Don't feel too bad; lots of people confuse the two.

Over in the baseball forum, we always like to ask: day game or night game?

Or more importantly....

Who's umpiring and when are they on vacation.....

Myabe we could combine the two and have a bass ice-fishing tournament. You have to drill your hole where your stone stops.

Truth be told, I spend much of the winter fishing through the ice -- to get the olives that fall to the bottom of the glass.