Help with this one

[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?"