Your reasoning for not calling a foul is what is wrong with the game today. B1 hacks A1 on the wrist and the ball goes out of bounds. Give the ball to A1 with not foul. That is pure nonsense. And teaching such nonsense in camps is horse manure. We have too many people who only care about what fans think about and making a buck (camp owners) than what is good for the game. The boss is not right in this case. We have too many officials now-a-days who are afraid to stand up and say: "Wait a minute Nelly! This is nonsense." But as long as officials will not stand up against this nonsense then we will have this type of contact not being called and the game will go to hell in a hand basket.

You guys can continue with this nonsense but if you officiate a game with me and let allow the play in the original posting I will find it hard to bail out your sorry tuckus. Not calling fouls because you do not want to interrupt the "flow" of the game is HORSE MANURE!

I teach new officials every year and I do a good job teaching them the rules, fundamentals of mechanics, and the fundamentals of how to apply the rules. Officials who promote this nonsense as presented by some in this thread do a diservice to the game and our profession.

Mark,your other direct quote before was "but the flow of the game in this instance dictates that Coach B in this case does not get a T".I do believe you just called your own advice "HORSE MANURE".I finally agree with you in this thread!:D

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I don't think this is a shock to you, but many will disagree with you. I think its a bit strange you think your way is the only way. I think it is a short minded to think it is a matter of officials standing up for themselves. For myself i think it adds to the game and makes it better.

[Edited by Bart Tyson on Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:01 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

We have too many officials now-a-days who are afraid to stand up and say: "Wait a minute Nelly! This is nonsense."

Kids today! Smart-aleck whipper-snappers! When I refereed, we didn't have no fancy Fox 40 whistles. We used pea-whistles. And we were thankful for 'em!! And didn't use no mamby-pamby V-neck shirts. We wore zip-up collared shirts. That's right. And if you weren't careful and you forgot a t-shirt, you had to zip it up and it'd catch your chest hairs and rip 'em right out!! And we liked it that way!! Rotten, ungrateful, kids oughtta listen better.

Hey!! Quit throwin' them eggs at my front door!!

Chuck :rolleyes:

Kids today! Smart-aleck whipper-snappers! When I refereed, we didn't have no fancy Fox 40 whistles. We used pea-whistles. And we were thankful for 'em!! And didn't use no mamby-pamby V-neck shirts. We wore zip-up collared shirts. That's right. And if you weren't careful and you forgot a t-shirt, you had to zip it up and it'd catch your chest hairs and rip 'em right out!! And we liked it that way!! Rotten, ungrateful, kids oughtta listen better.


[/B][/QUOTE]Hey,what's going on here?Now you're making fun of ME?Well,to HECK with you,Chuck!I now agree with Mark!:D

I forgot to add that us old referees never drank that sissy diet coke stuff,like you do.Heck,we didn't have diet ANYTHING in our day!Nope,real referees drink brownpop.Makes your shirt swell,but........I forget?What were we talking about?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 15th, 2002 at 07:53 PM]

Any one called a 7th or 8th grade game lately "by the book" without considering judgement on affects of flow, etc.? How many days did that game take? Or if you called every action that, by the book, was technically a foul, were there any players left to finish the first quarter? (And no bailouts by talking about disadvantage either. Those players are so lacking skill, generally speaking, that every distraction hampers them, and every contact affects them negatively.)

As for the original question on the T, it seems to me that there is too much missing information to decide. Was the chirping (before this point) when you were in front of the coach? or clear across the floor? How undermining was the chirping? (Some really is worse that others, but all of it undermines to some extent.) What gestures were associated with the yelling? Does the gym really permit the benches to be below the 28' mark, or do practical limitations narrow the distance between the bences and the table? (IOW, how far from the normal pacing zone was the coach?) Etc. etc.

I still beg to differ with you about the wrist not being part of the hand. Merriam Webster's does not say it isn't part of the hand and dictionary.com defines hand as: The terminal part of the human arm located below the forearm, used for grasping and holding and consisting of the wrist, palm, four fingers and an opposable thumb.

I have offered two legitimate references to the wrist being part of the hand and you have no refutation other than what you say. Unless human anatomy has changed since I went to college, the wrist is the proximal articulating surface of the hand.

Also you say you have a casebook reference to back up your ruling. Let's have it. I've looked through the casebook 3 times today and haven't found it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Excellent no-call! I think this type of call is perfect - a case of higher-calibre officiating. Coach B was complaining. What a dumbnut. I would only have T'd him if you had previously warned him for being vocal. Otherwise, this play would a perfect time to issue a (in private) warning, along with a nice "Coach, your player also fouled him on the play."

..Mike

The following definition of wrist is found in Webster's New World Dictionary of Americal English, Third Edition, Copyright 1988:

wrist (rist) n.: 1: the joint or part of the arm between the hand and the forearm; carpus.

The arm is made up of two parts: lower arm and upper arm.

The lower arm is connected to the hand by the wrist.

Which means the wrist is not part of the hand.

You gave me the definition for wrist not hand. I have given you 2 reputable definitions of hand as including the wrist. Look up hand and you will find that it includes the wrist. Might I suggest Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary and dictionary.com.

Goodness sakes!
 

Enough with the dictionary wars. I have a suggestion.

If you pass on the foul and award the ball as in the situation previously mentioned and the coach wants an explanation, a simple "hand on the ball coach" works great. He may say "He hacked the wrist", but "I saw hand on the ball coach."

If you call the foul and need to give an explanation, "He whacked him on the wrist coach"

No need to get in a tizzy over those old college anatomy courses, see it rather as another way to implement your judgment.

In most cases, I'm going with the first option, but there are a lot of variables, and saying "my way or the highway" about this hypothetical play seems to say there is no need to exercise judgment.

Hold a basketball in your hands. Your wrist will not be in contact with the ball. If the offensive player's hand is in contact with the all and a defensive player hits the offensive player's hand it is not a foul, but if the defender hits the offensive player's wrist the defensive player has committed a foul. The wrist in NOT part of the hand and it has never been considered part of the hand per NFHS and NCAA rules.

In 31 years of basketball officiating I have never heard anybody say the it is not a foul by a defensive player when the hit an offensvie player on the wrist of the hand which in contact with the ball. And there is a reason for that. It is a foul. I am sorry if I sound a little touchy but I am really tired of some of the nonsense that is being promoted by some officials that are devoid of logic and have no basis in the rules.

We're probably beating a dead horse here. Put one finger on the very end portion of your forearm(radius or ulna will suffice). Now move your finger 1 centimeter down toward your fingers. Your finger is now on your hand. Next question is where did your writst go? You didn't move from your radius or ulna to your wrist and then to your hand. The wrist is part of the hand. You told us in a previous post that you were sure there was a casebook reference saying the wrist is not part of the hand. What I'm wanting is that casebook reference please. Like I said previously, I looked all through the casebook 3 times and can't find it.

I think what really irritates me most about all this the accusations made toward officials being lazy for passing on contact that could or could not be a foul. We do that all the time as officials. It's called judgment. To categorically say that the contact was a foul when you weren't officiating the game and certainly have limited information about the contact is just plain wrong! If you're trying to say that you have never used your judgment in a game and passed on contact then I say there is a lot more of that horse manure going around.

Even though I agree with Sir DeNucci on the OOB call being wrong - I must admit I, too, am afraid to stand up and say, "Wait a minute Nelly." I don't want people laughing at me.

As to the other topic - anyone here ever get a wrist job? ;) That should settle it.

No Mark P, but it sounds intriguing.