delay of game warning or not?

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
The reason this has gone on 5 pages is that certain posters continue to repeat the same things over and over; and they (except Padgett) refuse to answer basic questions [/B
Uh-oh. Slider likes me. I must have gone over to the dark ]

No reason to worry, actually I gave you too much credit in that post, your reply to the question was in essence: "Yes it is a violation, but..."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Slider

No, because it is not at disposal for throw-in. If B does not pick it up and take it OOB immediately, I give the stop signal (stop the clock); put the ball on the endline OOB and start my count -- the clock is stopped so B did a very dumb thing.

I will also resond to Jurassic here; none of ways of putting the ball at disposal mention OB (we can ignore FTs, different animal), it is just assumed in 4-4-7 that it will be OOB. That is what is missing from 4-4-7, the clarification that disposal on throw-in has to be OOB.

Now, Mark, please answer my question: Is it not a violation for a player to carry a live ball OOB? [/B][/QUOTE]Slider,before you drive all of us loony,why don't you contact your local rules interpreter and get his opinion.Will you accept it if HE tells you that you are wrong?When you get an answer,be sure to let us know.Otherwise,you haven't found one person that agrees with your logic-so let it slide.

Of course,I still await Mark T's answer to Dan.

[Mark Padgett]

OK - here's a new slant (I think). In fact, it semi-supports some of what Slider has been saying - notice I said some If A1 scores, and B1 promptly grabs the ball and starts to walk OOB to inbound, should you start your 5 second count as soon as he grabs the ball or should you wait until he gets OOB? Well, is it fair to start before he gets OOB? After all, he does not have the opportunity to legally inbound the ball until he gets OOB and he should have a full 5 seconds from the point at which he can legally inbound, plus - he is doing just what he is supposed to be doing - promptly taking the ball OOB.

If that is the case, then can team A legally get a timeout while he is walking and before he gets OOB? If you look at it this way, yes. "Disposal" wouldn't start until he gets OOB.

However, I think there is a difference in the case in which B1 ignores the ball, or bats the ball away. Even though he still cannot legally inbound the ball until he gets OOB with it, he had the opportunity to do just that and chose not to. In my feeble way of thinking, he should be penalized for that by losing some of his precious 5 second inbounding window and the count should start. The question here then becomes - should team A legally be able to get a timeout during that particular counting situation. I vote no. I'm not sure why, but it just sounds right to me.

I realize there is a dichotomy here, but sometimes my life is a dichotomy.

However - I'm sure we can all agree on the following:

1) The NF needs to establish a case to cover all of this
2) The NF needs to better define the term "disposal"
3) The NF should define whether or not a case ruling for a particular inquiry from a single state applies nationwide
4) The NF should change the possession penalty that exists as part of the technical foul rule

OOPS - just couldn't resist slipping that last one in

And - oh yeah - let's all agree to keep our posts on this board on a professional, not person, level. Thanks.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Will you accept it if HE tells you that you are wrong?When you get an answer,be sure to let us know.Otherwise,you haven't found one person that agrees with your logic-so let it slide.[/B]

Of course I would abide by my interpreter's ruling, but I don't feel the need to get an interpretation on this. At the moment I am quite confident in my position.

And, I believe your last statement is false, I believe bob jenkins agrees with me. However, if I have misconstrued his post, and he doesn't agree with me, then indeed I would be worried about my position--and I would seriously consider changing it.

Not because it is bob, but because then I would be without any guru support (well Padgett is caving, I can hear it :-)

[Oz Referee]

Originally posted by Slider

Of course I would abide by my interpreter's ruling, but I don't feel the need to get an interpretation on this. At the moment I am quite confident in my position.[/B]

Slider - if I follow your "logic" correctly:

1. You post your opinion here and it is opposed by a majority of your peers.
2. You would accept the ruling of your interpreter, but feel that you don't need to ask, because you are right.

Isn't it fair to consider that there is a chance that you are incorrect in your judgement, and therefore the best course of action would be to ask your interpreter?

To me (and I'm sure other's here) your refusal to ask your interpreter about this situation is paramount to acknowledging that you are incorrect.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Oz Referee
To me (and I'm sure other's here) your refusal to ask your interpreter about this situation is paramount to acknowledging that you are incorrect.

I'll make a deal with my "peers" (actually, I am not in their league):

If each one of them agrees to get an interpretation from their respective state's interpreters and post it here, I too will solicit an interpretation and post it here.

So, if Mark Padgett, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., BktBallRef, and mick all go for this silly deal, I will too. I doubt that bob jenkins will go for it for the same reason that I don't need it.

Anyway, what happens when the interpretations differ, have we proved anything?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:06 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Slider
Of course Mr. Knox doesn't disagree, because you have misrepresented the situation.

Oh! So you're psychic? You know what was said in our converstaion. Wow! I understimated you.

[mick]

Originally posted by Slider

I'll make a deal with my "peers" (actually, I am not in their league):

If each one of them agrees to get an interpretation from their respective state's interpreters and post it here, I too will solicit an interpretation and post it here.

So, if Mark Padgett, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., BktBallRef, and mick all go for this silly deal, I will too. I doubt that bob jenkins will go for it for the same reason that I don't need it.

Anyway, what happens when the interpretations differ, have we proved anything?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:06 PM]

Slider,
May I be the first to say, "I will not go to an interpreter." The Big Dogs on this board work just fine for me.
mick

[Slider]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Oh! So you're psychic? You know what was said in our converstaion. Wow! I understimated you.

No, you changed the situation in that post, so I assumed you changed it in your conversation with Mr. Knox, i.e., you put the ball OOB (presumably near the endline).

Instead of either of us playing guessing games; Why not create a SITUATION on paper for Mr. Knox, and then post his ruling here. Or, give me his e-mail and I will ask him myself (and, YES, I will try to influence his ruling).

[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:52 PM]

[Slider]

Originally posted by mick
May I be the first to say, "I will not go to an interpreter." The Big Dogs on this board work just fine for me

Good, it was an absurd idea. The Big Dogs work for me too.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Slider

Anyway, what happens when the interpretations differ, have we proved anything?

Yes - see my signature

BTW - your profile is almost blank. Where do you ref? How long have you reffed? At what levels have you reffed? I'm not trying to denigrate your validity, but it's nice to know the experience level of someone who is contributing so we can make that part of the context for dialogue. Thanks.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
I'm not trying to denigrate your validity, but it's nice to know the experience level of someone who is contributing so we can make that part of the context for dialogue.

Those two almost sound contradictory. I will not post my resume here like some do; you can judge my statements in whatever context you like; but I will say that my focus is on NF rules.

The crux of the issue for NF is: Is it the intent of the rules that disposal may begin IB after a goal?

IMO, No, this leads to all kinds of absurd possibilities.

Now, does that mean you may NEVER start your count while the ball remains IB?

No, you may ethically do what you like since there is no clear guidance from NF.

---------------------------

Though I often appear to be saying what you can do; I am actually explaining a rules intent as I view it. They are two different things; and I apologize that I sometimes say you MUST do something.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Don't worry about your typing Mark. Your real problems are
that you engage in debate without listening to the other
side and that your primary tactic is proof by vigorous
assertion (which does not mean you have a "take no
prisoners" style, it just means you continue to say the
same things over & over, in a loud voice). Here are the
questions, copied directly from our exchange last night:

Why don't the NFHS rules specify warning for delay after a
made basket for the scoring team only?

Is it possible for a member of the team in control of the
ball (the offensive team) to violate by kicking?

I do not know why the NFHS rules do not specify the warning for interfering with the ball after the scoring of a goal. But I do know this the following. Before this rule was adopted by the NFHS, I think that it is a safe bet that rules interpreters all over the country debated for years over what to do about a player from Team A interfering with the ball immediately after Team A had scored a goal. I know that I debated about how to handle this problem myself many times. Many of those discussions were at IAABO Fall Interpreters conferences. I cannot ever remember the scenario of Team B interfering with the ball being considered. And I know for sure that Dick Schindler only discussed the application of this rule in terms of Team A interfering with the ball after it had just scored. Logic (not common sense) tells us that Team A is the only team to which the rule can be applied. Think about it, how can a team interfere with its own throw-in, it cannot.


The answer to your second question (Can a member of Team A who is in control of the ball commit a kicking the ball violation?) is simple. Yes. I am not sure how this question is applicable to our discussion, but I just answered your question.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Slider

Those two almost sound contradictory. I will not post my resume here like some do; you can judge my statements in whatever context you like; but I will say that my focus is on NF rules.

The crux of the issue for NF is: Is it the intent of the rules that disposal may begin IB after a goal?

IMO, No, this leads to all kinds of absurd possibilities.

Now, does that mean you may NEVER start your count while the ball remains IB?

No, you may ethically do what you like since there is no clear guidance from NF.

---------------------------

Though I often appear to be saying what you can do; I am actually explaining a rules intent as I view it. They are two different things; and I apologize that I sometimes say you MUST do something.

Slider, I have been a basketball official for 31 years now, and for all of those years, every intepreter I have ever known, every time I have heard Dick Schindler, Mary Struckhoff, Hank Nichols, and Ed Bilik speak, and every rules clinic I have ever attended that dealt with throw-ins have stated that the if the ball is inbounds after a score by Team A and Team B refuses to pick up the ball to take it out-of-bounds for a throw-in, the official should start the throw-in count. The official should not stop the clock and administer the throw-in.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Slider

I'll make a deal with my "peers" (actually, I am not in their league):

If each one of them agrees to get an interpretation from their respective state's interpreters and post it here, I too will solicit an interpretation and post it here.

So, if Mark Padgett, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., BktBallRef, and mick all go for this silly deal, I will too. I doubt that bob jenkins will go for it for the same reason that I don't need it.

Anyway, what happens when the interpretations differ, have we proved anything?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:06 PM]

For what play are we to get an intepretation?