Counselor:

I say so because G2 met all of the requirements of the definition of screening. Furthermore, the late Ed Ferrigno, a former member of the NFHS Rules Committee and State Interpreter for Connecticut was probably the most knowledgeable person regarding guarding/screening in the country and I helped him give seminars on block/charge, so I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about guarding and screening too. So when I say that G2 set a legal screen you can pretty well take it to the bank.

MTD, Sr.

no way was that an illegal screen. sure maybe there was a nudge but even without it, the blow still would have been hard.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ****ing match here. I just think it's interesting that you made your argument--an argument that some found compelling, some not so much--and then when you didn't convince everybody, you begged the question.

And now you've committed another fallacy, the appeal to authority. It's a mighty fancy appeal to be sure, but one that is nevertheless lacking in argumentative force.

To this observer, it seems clear that reasonable people can disagree on the play. You may reject that notion (and you may even be correct), but fallacious arguments don't help anyone get anywhere.

The appeal to authority fallacy assumes that everyone's opinion is equal. This is another fallacy, probably the biggest one of this thread. I will take Bob Jenkins and MTD's opinion over just about anyone's here.

On the contrary. The appeal to authority fallacy tells us that it is the opinion, per se, not the holder of the opinion, that is important. Of course some opinions are going to be more informed than others, but we shouldn't give an opinion 'informed' status just because of who utters it. In other words, whether Bob or MTD happens to be correct is completely independent of Bob and MTD themselves. It is the idea that is important, not he who propagates it.

Again, agree or disagree with those deemed 'expert,' but don't do it because of a label or attribution. Do it on the merits of the case.

When we're talking black and white, yes, the merit of the case is pretty straightforward. Officiating, OTOH, is a series of various shades of gray. Because of this, the opinions given have to always be linked with the person making them and their authority, experience, etc. Sometimes authority is granted to a specific person (an assignor, commissioner, supervisor, etc.) and other times it's based on other, less tangible factors, such as reputation and experience.

I look at this play and I prefer to put myself in the position of the official making the call, real-time. The screener is relatively stationary, certainly so compared with the player who bounces off of him. Is a small lean (and whether the screener is not vertical for the purpose of the POV is debatable, even by the experienced people here) forward to me enough to pass responsibility on the contact to the screener? No. I would be happy to argue that this was mainly done to absorb contact. If this was a block/charge situation, I'd call it a charge/PCF in a heartbeat.

(I've worked with Bob and I know both of the gentlemen's resumes and knowledge and to say that carries no weight is a bit ridiculous, IMO.)

That is an argument that deserves serious consideration, if not full acceptance.


The above is not.

Look, of course Mark and Bob have more credibility than most commenters here. Those in the know begin reading those two guys' posts with more initial buy-in than with the posts of many others. But one of the things that makes those guys credible in the first place is their actual expertise, i.e. rules knowledge and breadth of experience, not their claimed expertise.

Put differently, I usually read Mark's posts and think, "that's a really well-argued point, and I agree." But Mark usually doesn't need to remind me that he's Mark Denucci, super-duper-expert, in order to persuade me. In this particular case, after doing what he usually does--present evidence, draw a conclusion based on simple deductive reasoning--he broke form and dipped into the expert well, a well which carries no weight with me.

I'm not even arguing the facts in evidence here, just advocating that people think about the facts and the attendant rules and come to a conclusion based on only those things. If that conclusion happens to square with Mark's and Bob's, good on 'em; but nobody should simply default to those guys' positions based on reputation.

So what you're saying is you're arguing about the argument?

Count it.

Well, if you are going to jump into accusations of fallacies, you should make sure you understand them completely.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority, and that is not a logical fallacy.

The fallacy is a False appeal to authority, where either the authority in question is not an authority, or there is no agreement amongst authorities about the issue.

Lets go to the rulebook!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Well, A rulebook anyway.

Of course, some might say that referencing a source is a appeal to authority!

I apologize for being agressive and hard-headed in this thread, BUT, over my long career, I have observed that far, far, far, far too many basketball officials do an absolutely terrible job of applying the guarding/screening (block/charge) principles correctly. We as a whole do an absolutely terrible job of applying the rule correctly.

MTD, Sr.

Late to the party....no foul. Nothing the screener did, even if not absolutely stationary, caused or increased the amount of contact. At worst, he braced for the impending collision. The minor "lean" didn't put the screener more into the path of the defender at all. The only impact it had was to allow the screener to not get knocked on his backside when the defender ran into him. The defender was going to run sqare into the screeners chest with or without the minor lean....therefore, the lean was not relevant.

Camron:

Thank you! Thank you! Someone who thinks like me. You are not doomed.

MTD, Sr.