more firsts

[Rich]

We were getting ready to start the second quarter of a GV game last night and the home coach asked if he could have a 60-second timeout -- he had a player who was getting taped up after rolling an ankle and he wanted her on the floor to start the quarter. First time anyone has asked for a timeout between periods in one of my games since I started officiating (I think, the early days are a bit of a blur).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We were getting ready to start the second quarter of a GV game last night and the home coach asked if he could have a 60-second timeout -- he had a player who was getting taped up after rolling an ankle and he wanted her on the floor to start the quarter. First time anyone has asked for a timeout between periods in one of my games since I started officiating (I think, the early days are a bit of a blur).

I'm impressed that the coach knew to use a T-O.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You can rake all day, but the thing you're trying to move won't move unless you strike it with the rake. The ball moved.

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting
includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

So, if a player makes contact with a player and the player moves, are you going to call this striking and eject the player for a flagrant foul?

Per 10-3-5 slapping or striking the backboard is a technical foul. If a player touches the backboard, are you going to call a technical foul?

Just curious. As I stated earlier, I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking. Based on the multiple definitions of striking that are in the Rules Book, one could still interpret your play, in my opinion, as being legal -- even though I believe that the intent of the rule is to make it illegal.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting
includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

So, if a player makes contact with a player and the player moves, are you going to call this striking and eject the player for a flagrant foul?

Per 10-3-5 slapping or striking the backboard is a technical foul. If a player touches the backboard, are you going to call a technical foul?

Just curious. As I stated earlier, I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking. Based on the multiple definitions of striking that are in the Rules Book, one could still interpret your play, in my opinion, as being legal -- even though I believe that the intent of the rule is to make it illegal.

Your other references have no relevance in the discussion of this play. Apparently you are disturbed by the use of the verb rake in this situation.
Okay, the player intentionally used his foot to play the ball. He extended the foot, gently struck the ball, and pushed it back to himself. It was a kicking violation.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Your other references have no relevance in the discussion of this play. Apparently you are disturbed by the use of the verb rake in this situation.
Okay, the player intentionally used his foot to play the ball. He extended the foot, gently struck the ball, and pushed it back to himself. It was a kicking violation.

JAR,
This has NOTHING to do with your use of the verb rake. It has everything to do with the use of the word "striking" when discussing a kick and in these other references in the Rules Book. Players placing their foot on top of the ball and rolling the ball back to themselves have USED their foot, but they have not "struck" the ball in the sense that the word "striking" is used elsewhere in the Rules Book.

I am not objecting as to whether the INTENT of the Rules Book is to consider this use of the foot to be illegal. I am merely suggesting that in lieu of using the words "intentionally striking the ball with the foot (or leg)" the wording should be changed to "intentionally contacting the ball with the foot (or leg)". This change in the wording would eliminate any question as to the intent of this rule.

[Adam]

This is a case where the intent of the rule must be known to determine how to apply it. When you take that into account, the rule is fine as is.

Not that it wouldn't be improved if done as you suggest.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a case where the intent of the rule must be known to determine how to apply it. When you take that into account, the rule is fine as is.

Not that it wouldn't be improved if done as you suggest.

Shaqs,
The problem that I see with the current wording is that there are many officials who KNOW the Rules Book, BUT do NOT know the game. For these folks, the clearer the wording, the better.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

The problem that I see with the current wording is that there are many officials who KNOW the Rules Book, BUT do NOT know the game. For these folks, the clearer the wording, the better.

And does your research also tell you that there are many coaches that know the game but don't have a clue when it comes to rules?

Does your research also tell you that there are many coaches who don't know the game OR the rules?

Btw, just to be explicit, what is the exact percentage of officials that know the rulebook but don't know the game, according to your extensive research?

PS- my own extensive research tells me that 41.36% of all coaches know the game but don't know the rules. And 49.85% of all coaches don't know the game or the rules. Which leaves 8.79% of all coaches that know both the rules and the game. I know that figure might sound high to my officiating brethren, but that's what my extensive research came up with.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And does your research also tell you that there are many coaches that know the game but don't have a clue when it comes to rules?

Does your research also tell you that there are many coaches who don't know the game OR the rules?

Btw, just to be explicit, what is the exact percentage of officials that know the rulebook but don't know the game, according to your extensive research?

PS- my own extensive research tells me that 41.36% of all coaches know the game but don't know the rules. And 49.85% of all coaches don't know the game or the rules. Which leaves 8.79% of all coaches that know both the rules and the game. I know that figure might sound high to my officiating brethren, but that's what my extensive research came up with.

Jurassic,
Depending upon your threshold for "knowing the rules", the 8.79% number could be very high to moderately high -- I am quite certain that far less than 2 in 23 understand the last-touch-first-touch back court violation, for example.

I can tell you that I can confidently state that I understand the game of basketball better than 95+% of the coaches. And, no, I am not a coach anymore.

I was NOT comparing the knowledge of the coaches to the officials when I made the statement (simply because I have both coach and ref in my user name, do not assume that statements I make are comparing the two).

It is the officials, NOT the coaches, who are the ones who must know and interpret the rules. I stand by my statement that many (means more than three -- a couple being two, a few being three or so -- without specifying a number or a specific percentage) of the officials know the rules, but do not necessarily understand the game. The number of coaches -- and associated percentages -- who do/don't know the game is irrelevant in this discussion as they are not the ones responsible for enforcing the rules.

Therefore, it makes sense to me to modify the current wording describing illegally using the foot to "intentionally contacting the ball with the foot (or leg)."

P.S. I think the change in wording would help the coaches understand the rule a bit better as well.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

It is the officials, NOT the coaches, who are the ones who must know and interpret the rules. I stand by my statement that many (means more than three -- a couple being two, a few being three or so -- without specifying a number or a specific percentage) of the officials know the rules, but do not necessarily understand the game.

Hmmmmm......

The dictionary definition of "many" means "a large or considerable number; numerous". Afaik, that seems to be the general understanding of the term "many" too.

I have no doubt that you stand by your statement. If you think that a large and considerable number of officials don't have a clue what the game is about, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I have a little bit more regard and respect for my fellow officials' knowledge and understanding of the game. Aamof I think that "MANY" of my confreres might just understand the game a helluva lot better than you'd ever dream of giving them credit.

Did you ever think that maybe learning the nuances of certain rules like a "kicked ball" might be part of the normal learning curve for "many" officials as they gain experience and knowledge? You know, the real reason that "many" officials (including me) come to forums like this?

Naw, I guess not.

Sorry I wasted your time.....

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Hmmmmm......

The dictionary definition of "many" means "a large or considerable number; numerous". Afaik, that seems to be the general understanding of the term "many" too.

I have no doubt that you stand by your statement. If you think that a large and considerable number of officials don't have a clue what the game is about, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I have a little bit more regard and respect for my fellow officials' knowledge and understanding of the game. Aamof I think that "MANY" of my confreres might just understand the game a helluva lot better than you'd ever dream of giving them credit.

Did you ever think that maybe learning the nuances of certain rules like a "kicked ball" might be part of the normal learning curve for "many" officials as they gain experience and knowledge? You know, the real reason that "many" officials (including me) come to forums like this?

Naw, I guess not.

Sorry I wasted your time.....

Jurassic,
I would say that "many" officials (including BOTH of us) are on this forum right now (probably between 15 and 45 in number). I would say that MOST officials understand the game and the rules just fine -- I never said that they did not. At the same time, there are indeed a number of officials who do NOT understand the game. You are nitpicking on one word MANY, this is unfortunate.

I feel that I am a fairly decent official with a good understanding of the game. At the same time, I think that changing the words in this section of the rule book would make administering the rule easier for all officials including those newer to the game. There are many newer officials who try to memorize the book. My point in this case is that modifying the words of this rule would likely cause these officials to get this call correct. Further, this change would NOT adversely affect your ability nor the ability of any of our esteemed and experienced fellow officials from getting this call correct.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Hmmmmm......

The dictionary definition of "many" means "a large or considerable number; numerous". Afaik, that seems to be the general understanding of the term "many" too.

Look at all the "simple" questions that get asked here. Look at all the crap in the IdiotVillage videos. Look at all the ref-league refs.

"Many" is a reasonably apt description, I think, especially given the vagaries of "understand the rules and the game."

IOW, I think you're just stirring the ****, here.