Help with this one

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

1) The difference in choosing the correct rule to use is that if you try to apply rule 4-18, it means that the player must be disqualified. It's automatic with no judgment involved. That means that all pushes are flagrant. If you correctly use R4--19-4, you now can use your judgment as to whether the pushing act actually is flagrant or not. And I think that you will agree that not all pushes are automatically flagrant.

Make any more sense now?

Jurassic Referee, I totally see your point of view. However, I just can't bring myself to totally agree with it.

Let's take the same situation and apply R 4-18 there is no need to apply judgement it straight to the point.

By applying 4-19-4 where an official has to use judgement and treat the push as not severe and later on in the game the same two players get tangle up again now that said official have to penalize both players for the earlier situation and I don't totally agree with that.

My take is when we have a rule which is straight to the point like 4-18 use it. Let's leave judgement out of it in a situation like this.

Not saying your judgement stinks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Strike: To come into contact forcefully.

How can a "shove" not be considered "forceful contact"?

Since the defination of "strike" includes "contact forcefully", then this must be considered a "strike".

Hold on there. You're completely dropping key words in the defintion of strike.... to come into contact forcefully. It's how the contact is initiated that makes it a strike. If I softly put my hand on someone and then use it to shove them, it may be forceful contact but it is NOT a strike. A strike is like a punch but may be with an open hand, arm, etc.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are you going to draw a distinction between action, conduct, behavior and foul?

Already have. A player's act determines the foul. A deliberate push in an opponent's face, for example, is an unsporting act. Whether that push occurred during a live or dead ball determines whether the foul to be called is an intentional or flagrant personal foul or an intentional or flagrant technical foul.

One act--->two different possible types of fouls.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Jurassic Referee, I totally see your point of view. However, I just can't bring myself to totally agree with it.

2)Let's take the same situation and apply R 4-18 there is no need to apply judgment it straight to the point.
By applying 4-19-4 where an official has to use judgment and treat the push as not severe and later on in the game the same two players get tangle up again now that said official have to penalize both players for the earlier situation and I don't totally agree with that.

My take is when we have a rule which is straight to the point like 4-18 use it. Let's leave judgement out of it in a situation like this.

1) That's cool. I'm just giving you my opinion.

2) If you apply R4-18 to all pushes, then you have to throw all players out for all pushes. There's no judgment involved. If a player pushes someone, he/she is gone. That means that you're tossing a kid for a quick, one-handed push that might be unsporting but is not flagrant. If you use R4-19-4 though, you can call the foul as determined by the severity of the act, using your judgment.

The purpose and intent of rule 4-18-2 is to penalize the instigator of a fight equally with the player responding.

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jurassic Referee, I totally see your point of view. However, I just can't bring myself to totally agree with it.

Let's take the same situation and apply R 4-18 there is no need to apply judgement it straight to the point.

By applying 4-19-4 where an official has to use judgement and treat the push as not severe and later on in the game the same two players get tangle up again now that said official have to penalize both players for the earlier situation and I don't totally agree with that.

My take is when we have a rule which is straight to the point like 4-18 use it. Let's leave judgement out of it in a situation like this.

Not saying your judgement stinks

Except for the little nitpicky fact that 4-18 does NOT apply to this shove...it was not a fight by NFHS definitions, and no matter how much you want it to be it will never be a fight by NFHS definition. If you call that a fight and follow the proper procedure of ejecting the player and recording it as a fight in the book, I guarantee you that the school will appeal and the State will uphold the appeal and allow the player to participate in the next game...IOW, they will rule that your ejection for "fighting" was an incorrect application of the rules. If you call the push a flagrant act and eject the player for it, fantastic - there will be no basis for an appeal. But don't misapply the rules to fit your definitions - change your definitions to fit the rules.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=rockyroad]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Except for the little nitpicky fact that 4-18 does NOT apply to this shove...it was not a fight by NFHS definitions, and no matter how much you want it to be it will never be a fight by NFHS definition. If you call that a fight and follow the proper procedure of ejecting the player and recording it as a fight in the book, I guarantee you that the school will appeal and the State will uphold the appeal and allow the player to participate in the next game...IOW, they will rule that your ejection for "fighting" was an incorrect application of the rules. If you call the push a flagrant act and eject the player for it, fantastic - there will be no basis for an appeal. But don't misapply the rules to fit your definitions - change your definitions to fit the rules.

I'm not of the mold to misapply the rules to fit my definitions. I was just having a discussion with Jurassic Referee to better understand spirit and intent of some rules. You can read rules all day and think you fully understand the spirit and intent until you encounter a different perspectives outside of your own perspective. It WAS just a discussion I enjoyed having with Jurassic Ref.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I'm not of the mold to misapply the rules to fit my definitions. I was just having a discussion with Jurassic Referee to better understand spirit and intent of some rules. You can read rules all day and think you fully understand the spirit and intent until you encounter a different perspectives outside of your own perspective. It WAS just a discussion I enjoyed having with Jurassic Ref.

Please don't dismiss what Rocky is telling you as not being relevant to the discussion though. In basketball, there is an expected and accepted call. Rocky is telling you that concept is applicable in this case. My experience is that everything that he said is correct.

Rocky is a very experienced and knowledgeable veterano. He's got a Womens D2 National Championship tournament on his resume. He knows what he's talking about. We're all lucky(that includes me) that we've got more than a few like him on this forum.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Please don't dismiss what Rocky is telling you as not being relevant to the discussion though. In basketball, there is an expected and accepted call. Rocky is telling you that concept is applicable in this case. My experience is that everything that he said is correct.

Rocky is a very experienced and knowledgeable veterano. He's got a Womens D2 National Championship tournament on his resume. He knows what he's talking about. We're all lucky(that includes me) that we've got more than a few like him on this forum.

Jurassic Referee, I wasn't dismissing anything. I was just communicating to rockyroad that the discussion we (u and i) was having actually brought to my attention a different perspective on the intent and spirit of some rules 4-18; 4-19 and how they can be applied that's all.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jurassic Referee, I wasn't dismissing anything. I was just communicating to rockyroad that the discussion we (u and i) was having actually brought to my attention a different perspective on the intent and spirit of some rules 4-18; 4-19 and how they can be applied that's all.

I realized that. I was just trying to add that Rocky's perspective should be given consideration also.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I realized that. I was just trying to add that Rocky's perspective should be given consideration also.

Jurassic Referee, I appreciate that. I'm aware of who I can take constructive criticism from or not.

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jurassic Referee, I appreciate that. I'm aware of who I can take constructive criticism from or not.

So does this mean that my constructive criticism is no good?? Even though it was the same thing that Jurassic was telling you? Hmmm...interesting. Might I ask "Why?"

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=rockyroad]

Originally Posted by truerookie

So does this mean that my constructive criticism is no good?? Even though it was the same thing that Jurassic was telling you? Hmmm...interesting. Might I ask "Why?"

Shut up.

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Shut up.

OK...

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=rockyroad]

Originally Posted by truerookie

So does this mean that my constructive criticism is no good?? Even though it was the same thing that Jurassic was telling you? Hmmm...interesting. Might I ask "Why?"

No, your criticism is fine Rockyroad your not in the or not catagory.

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

No, your criticism is fine Rockyroad your not in the or not catagory.

Whew!! Had me worried there for a minute. Thought maybe I was headed to hell with JR and M&M Guy!

Anyway, I would just be very careful about labeling something as a fight because of the fact that it is given it's own section in the rule books...and believe me, I am speaking from experience.