United States Army General hired by the NBA for referee operations

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Making a call like this has nothing to do with "advantage/disadvantage". Either the player traveled or he didn't. If he did and you saw it, call it. If he didn't or if he did and you didn't see it, don't call it. It's a simple game.

On what other rules do you flip a coin to decide if you will enforce them or not?

That pretty much sums it up right there.

Anybody that wants to make up and apply their very own personal set of rules doesn't help the rest of us. Whether we like or agree with certain rules isn't a factor either.

If someone wants to officiate a high school game using NBE philosophies, that's their prerogative. Good luck to them. the good part is that I don't have to work with them. And believe me, I won't.

Jmo...and i sureashell ain't gonna change it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you going to tell others that are working and assigning Division 1 basketball they should stop officiating because they teach things you do not agree with? You might, but they likely are going to tell you where to go.

Peace

If you're telling me that people assigning D1 ball are teaching their people to officiate using advantage/disadvantage philosophies on violations, then you're not very believable imo. That's a complete pile of doodoo. The officiating bulletins issued by the NCAA say something completely different.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

Please don't get personal.

You're right. I shouldn't have got personal. I was wrong to do that and I apoligize.

Having said that, I really don't see a need to discuss it any further. I quite simply do not agree with you and I never will. Anything further is just repeating myself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

We probably aren't going to agree. I agree with the way the game is officiated. If somebody travels, but it's a slight travel and it didn't affect the play at hand (meaning the offender/offense did not gain an advantage from it) I am probably going to let it go. IMO, which I know we disagree on this, it is best to let someone do somethin special on a breakaway because the defense did nothing to cause the travel so why reward them?? Also did it really affect the play at hand?? If the travel just allowed him to dunk and make it look sweet let it go if there is no defenders around him. I agree with that philosophy.

To quote the soon-to-be-replaced New Jersey license plates, "WTF."

This is comlete crap, IMO. If the travel is what allowed him to dunk, or do something "special," then it was illegal. Why allow the offense to benefit from breaking the rules?
If you're talking about something borderline where you're not sure, let it go. But if it's a blatant travel, you know he traveled, you do not just let it go because no defense was around. He was obviously trying to do something he's not capable of doing within the rules.
Calling the travel is not rewarding the defense, it's penalizing the offense for breaking the rules.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

Like I've said from the very beginning...

NOTHING OVERRULES THE OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's right - and it's obvious you're wrong.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

Like I've said from the very beginning...

NOTHING OVERRULES THE OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But that's not all you've said.
I'll grant that you seem to be willing to call the travel if the kid runs from the half-court line in the process of his special dunk.
What I'm not sure of, however, is if you're willing to call a travel if the kid "obviously" picks up his pivot foot prior to starting the dribble, or if he takes one extra step with his pivot foot after picking up his dribble. IOW, it's obvious to the official even if little brother doesn't understand it in the stands.

Whether it's obvious or not has nothing to do with whether an advantage was gained. Whether it's obvious is subjective, quite frankly. Whether an advantage is gained is also subjective. Whether a player traveled or not is not subjective.

(trying to use words Nevada doesn't have to look up.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But that's not all you've said.
I'll grant that you seem to be willing to call the travel if the kid runs from the half-court line in the process of his special dunk.
What I'm not sure of, however, is if you're willing to call a travel if the kid "obviously" picks up his pivot foot prior to starting the dribble, or if he takes one extra step with his pivot foot after picking up his dribble. IOW, it's obvious to the official even if little brother doesn't understand it in the stands.

Whether it's obvious or not has nothing to do with whether an advantage was gained. Whether it's obvious is subjective, quite frankly. Whether an advantage is gained is also subjective. Whether a player traveled or not is not subjective.

(trying to use words Nevada doesn't have to look up.)

Once again, what people consider a travel is also subjective. I see officials call travels all the time at the high school level that just "look funny." Or call a "carry" because the ball is dribbled high. So how is this any different than the NBA if they do not call travels that closely, and we (as high school officials) call travels that do not exist. Better yet, I see many of the same travels in the NBA missed at the high school level. I should know, I watch them all the time just during the summer and I pick out what I see as a travel, the officials on the court either miss or have a different point of view.

Honestly, this really is a silly debate at the end of the day, because this is more about certain people do not like the NBA more than what is called or not.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Honestly, this really is a silly debate at the end of the day, because this is more about certain people do not like the NBA more than what is called or not.

That's how it started, then it became about whether or not traveling should be called based on advantage/disadvantage. Missing calls or seeing it differently is part of the game; we can all live with that. Deciding not to call it because no advantage is perceived or because it was "unforced" is not something most of us can agree with.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's how it started, then it became about whether or not traveling should be called based on advantage/disadvantage. Missing calls or seeing it differently is part of the game; we can all live with that. Deciding not to call it because no advantage is perceived or because it was "unforced" is not something most of us can agree with.

This debate has started long before this thread. And it really has little or nothing to do with some advantage/disadvantage debate. This is about that some here think the world revolves around their thinking of the rules and how the game is called and actually it does not have anything to do with such a thing.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If you're telling me that people assigning D1 ball are teaching their people to officiate using advantage/disadvantage philosophies on violations, then you're not very believable imo. That's a complete pile of doodoo. The officiating bulletins issued by the NCAA say something completely different.

I am not telling you that they teach you to do anything. I am telling you that they allow things to be called that are not as black and white as you make them out to be. And yes, what those bulletins say only go so far, because the people on them still make the tournament (as well as the NCAA Clinic tape).

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This debate has started long before this thread. And it really has little or nothing to do with some advantage/disadvantage debate. This is about that some here think the world revolves around their thinking of the rules and how the game is called and actually it does not have anything to do with such a thing.

Peace

I don't think anyone here takes it nearly this seriously. Maybe it's just me.

And no, Jurassic doesn't count. He's just grumpy because he has to change his license plate to something besides WTF CHUK.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think anyone here takes it nearly this seriously. Maybe it's just me.

And no, Jurassic doesn't count. He's just grumpy because he has to change his license plate to something besides WTF CHUK.

Well you need to read all the name calling people get when someone does not agree with them. It must be serious to someone when you have to tell people not to officiate anymore because they disagree with your philosophies on the game. Then tells everyone that this is not how the game at the high school level should be called (without considering that high school is more than your little part of the country).

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This debate has started long before this thread. And it really has little or nothing to do with some advantage/disadvantage debate. This is about that some here think the world revolves around their thinking of the rules and how the game is called and actually it does not have anything to do with such a thing.

Peace

I get it. I'm wrong for getting personal...but it's OK for you to do the exact same thing.

As usual, you inject yourself into a debate and immediately start expounding on something that has got nothing to do with that debate nor has it ever been a part of that debate. I actually thought that you were getting a little better in the last few years. I was wrong. Nothing changes with you.

And, no, I am not going to get into one of those stoopid 5-page back- and-forth completely irrelevant discussions that you so dearly love either. Go play with Nevada.

As you love to point out so often yourself, if you don't like what I write, then don't read the damn posts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's how it started, then it became about whether or not traveling should be called based on advantage/disadvantage. Missing calls or seeing it differently is part of the game; we can all live with that. Deciding not to call it because no advantage is perceived or because it was "unforced" is not something most of us can agree with.

Yup.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I get it. I'm wrong for getting personal...but it's OK for you to do the exact same thing.

As usual, you inject yourself into a debate and immediately start expounding on something that has got nothing to do with that debate nor has it ever been a part of that debate. I actually thought that you were getting a little better in the last few years. I was wrong. Nothing changes with you.

And, no, I am not going to get into one of those stoopid 5-page back- and-forth completely irrelevant discussions that you so dearly love either. Go play with Nevada.

As you love to point out so often yourself, if you don't like what I write, then don't read the damn posts.

I have been involved in this debate several times. And you have never answered reasonable questions to why your position is the only way to go on this subject. You just dislike the NBA (which is fine) and trying to make this discussion about what you think (which is usual) and trying to make that a larger point. You did that by attacking a fellow official here personally. I am not trying to go around and around with you and I also do not dislike the conversation. But why is your position on this topic so special and everyone else is so wrong? Where is the evidence that NBA does not call travels the same way as it is called in a high school game? Do you have some stats on how many travel calls are not called in the NBA? Do you have evidence that the NBA does not call fouls to the rules (as you earlier suggested)? At some point you should back up these claims. Is that too much to ask? I watch NBA games and I see a lot of things called several times that you claim are never called. And we have to do better than a YouTube video of one play, because the very same type of plays is shown at other levels with an obviously missed travel.

There is a difference here; I am interested in having the debate. I am not telling you how to post like others. But at some point you have told everyone that disagrees with you how wrong they are, when are you going to back it up? Or will you just admit that you really do not know what the NBA does because you do not watch it and you do not like the game. At the very least be honest about your real point of view. Or have you just bought into the hype of the media and believe what they think about the game?

Peace