The Official Forum - Do you make a call here?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Do you make a call here? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/5300-do-you-make-call-here.html)

Re: Re: Amazing!!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I'm not trying to be a smart-@$$ (yeah, sure), but nobody answered my question. Rule 2 says it's prohibited to practice, but there's no penalty listed. Why are we so quick to say that it's a T? Maybe it's just a violation. You take away the ball, or the FT, and continue on. Any thoughts?

Chuck

Chuck, we aren't making this up. At one time, the rulebook listed the penalty specifically for practicing during dead balls as a technical foul. There hasn't been any type of rule change that I know of. Sometimes editorial changes are made without the knowledge or consent of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committe. Just look at 2-84. The rule changed last year but the change, with editorial or otherwise was not approved by the committee.

But I think you know that Mark, Brian, Dan, Woody, Devon, DJ and me didn't all just conspire to make this up! :)

I'll do some research in my old rule books and see what I can find.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

But what do I know, I do not know the rules. :D

Amen! [/B]

D@mn Woody, you beat me to it! :D

So basically you want us to believe..........

way back when, at a time far, far away there was a rule? You have got to be kidding me?

So I guess officials that are newer are suppose to go on rules and things that exsisted at one point. I guess we should give just call Ts on players that do not raise their hand anymore after a foul. That would make sense. WOW!!!!

But I am the one that does not know the rules. :rolleyes:

To quote John Stoslele(sp?) from ABC 20/20, "Give me a break."

Peace

Re: So basically you want us to believe..........

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
way back when, at a time far, far away there was a rule? You have got to be kidding me?

But I am the one that does not know the rules. :rolleyes:

No,Rut,we're telling you that there IS a rule SPECIFICALLY in the rulebook NOW!That rule is R2-7-4.Borrow a rulebook and look it up.We're not lying to you.

Even if he would eventually admit that a rule exists that does cover this (or any other situation), he would stand by his original conclusion by saying something like:

1. That's not the meaning of the rule
2. You must not have reffed for long
3. You will not go very high if you call that

Doesn't matter the situation, the response is the same.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

No,Rut,we're telling you that there IS a rule SPECIFICALLY in the rulebook NOW!That rule is R2-7-4.Borrow a rulebook and look it up.We're not lying to you. [/B]

Whatever you say man. :rolleyes:

Peace

Re: JR, could you be more perdictable?

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
Probably not.

Peace

Perdictable???????? What the heck is perdictable?????

Piece

Again...Oh for God's sake...did anyone actually ever say they WOULD call a T for this?? I believe it was simply pointed out that a T COULD be called...big difference...but what do I know - I don't ref in Illinois...

Peas

Re: Re: JR, could you be more perdictable?

Quote:

Originally posted by devdog69

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
Probably not.

Peace

Perdictable???????? What the heck is perdictable?????

Piece

It's how Jed Clampett would pronounce "predictable".

Peas

I guess Jed could have been from Illinoise originally.