my camp experience

[JRutledge]

9-2-11, does not cover the same penatly for what happens under 5 seconds as 9.11.12 Play covers it in the Casebook. The rule itself says nothing about a "Last second tactic." That to me is a perfect example of how the casebook ties something in that is not specificially covered in the rulebook. If it was covered in the rulebook, then there would be some mention of a throw-in boundary-plane violation as being a Technical foul during the "last seconds" of the game. Penalty 1 & 2 only covers a boundary-line plane violation. It does not cover what happens in the last few seconds. It does cover what happens if you touch a player or the ball in Penalty 3 & 4.

We had this very discussion in a association meeting and no one had an answer, until I read this casebook play. If you only read the rulebook and never the casebook, you might not realize that the NF has a ruling that is not covered by the original rule. That is what the casebook is for (in my opinion). And there are several plays like that, where the casebook clears up bad wording or ambigious understanding.

Now, if you feel I need to admit something, then you are the one wrong. Just because you disagee with a point, does not mean I am in any way wrong. I have had this very discussion with officials that I respect and have achieved much more than you or I, so I guess they are wrong too. Get over yourself and who is telling you something and simply read what is being said. If you disagee, so be it. Your life and my life will go on.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

You know, why don't you guys just go admit that the Yankees steal the division every year. It's ok when you buy it -- you have the resources, you use them. I can live with that. But Mondesi for one minor league lefty?!?!?! 30 years ago, Bowie Kuhn invalidated several deals that the A's made and the A's got a whole lot more for Vida Blue than the Jays got for Mondesi. It's not just sour grapes from a Sox fan, either. Deals like that one, and the fire sale in Miami back in '96 are bad for overall competition and the health of the industry.

Chuck

The deal does kinda make ya wonder if someone has a picture of the Jay's GM and a donkey,doesn't it?
Btw,you left out the fact that the Jays are paying half of Mondesi's salary next year,too.That'll let George buy a pitcher in August,in case he thinks he needs another one then.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Faded early this year, no?

You must've missed Pedro's performance yesterday.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge
9-2-11, does not cover the same penatly for what happens under 5 seconds as 9.11.12 Play covers it in the Casebook. The rule itself says nothing about a "Last second tactic." That to me is a perfect example of how the casebook ties something in that is not specificially covered in the rulebook. If it was covered in the rulebook, then there would be some mention of a throw-in boundary-plane violation as being a Technical foul during the "last seconds" of the game. Penalty 1 & 2 only covers a boundary-line plane violation. It does not cover what happens in the last few seconds. It does cover what happens if you touch a player or the ball in Penalty 3 & 4.

We had this very discussion in a association meeting and no one had an answer, until I read this casebook play. If you only read the rulebook and never the casebook, you might not realize that the NF has a ruling that is not covered by the original rule. That is what the casebook is for (in my opinion). And there are several plays like that, where the casebook clears up bad wording or ambigious understanding.

Now, if you feel I need to admit something, then you are the one wrong. Just because you disagee with a point, does not mean I am in any way wrong. I have had this very discussion with officials that I respect and have achieved much more than you or I, so I guess they are wrong too. Get over yourself and who is telling you something and simply read what is being said. If you disagee, so be it. Your life and my life will go on.

Peace

Well, I ain't JR, but all I gotta say is once again Camron's Law applies. Wanna chime in here JR??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Well, I ain't JR, but all I gotta say is once again Camron's Law applies. Wanna chime in here JR??
[/B][/QUOTE]Not me,Slappy Dan.I've taken the "vow of silence".Except for the Bosox,of course.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, I ain't JR, but all I gotta say is once again Camron's Law applies. Wanna chime in here JR??
[/B]

Not me,Slappy Dan.I've taken the "vow of silence".Except for the Bosox,of course. [/B][/QUOTE]

yeah, yeah, yeah, grumble grumble...i knew that was coming.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

You know, why don't you guys just go admit that the Yankees steal the division every year. It's ok when you buy it -- you have the resources, you use them. I can live with that. But Mondesi for one minor league lefty?!?!?! 30 years ago, Bowie Kuhn invalidated several deals that the A's made and the A's got a whole lot more for Vida Blue than the Jays got for Mondesi. It's not just sour grapes from a Sox fan, either. Deals like that one, and the fire sale in Miami back in '96 are bad for overall competition and the health of the industry.

Chuck

Gotta love those Braves, uh, Chuck!

[rockyroad]

Come on guys, get with it...prior to last night's game, Ichiro was batting .363, and he went 3 for 4 and a walk... so the real question here is - can he reach that magical number of .400??? And if he does, will George try to get him in the off-season??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Come on guys, get with it...prior to last night's game, Ichiro was batting .363, and he went 3 for 4 and a walk... so the real question here is - can he reach that magical number of .400??? And if he does, will George try to get him in the off-season??

Nah,Ichiro ain't gonna hit .400-unless he starts to hit the,uh,"diet supplements" big time.Too many night games and too many time zones.Great to watch though,isn't he?Also,why would he even want to leave Seattle?He's got a great city,a fine team around him,a sharp front office,and one of the best managers in beisbol in LouLou.It would be nice to see a ballplayer like him spend his whole career in one city,too.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

My main point, though, was that the casebook specifically says that the ruling is in place to keep a team from benefiting by breaking the rule. The spirit of the rule (jeez, here we go again, right? ) seems to be that you shouldn't be able to get an advantage from breaking the delay rules. That's why ruling an immediate T is tempting. It's also why the NBA changed their delay rule. But you're right -- by rule, it's legal.

Chuck

They don't necessarily benefit if the clock is already stopped. The ruling that says to ignore it if the clock is running is to prevent the defense from stopping the clock in a situation when the clock would run out without the throwing even occuring...thus getting a chance to steal the ball that they would not otherwise have.

To call the violation will stop the clock and force the offense to actually make the throw-in. There would be no penalty for the infraction. So we either ignore it...letting time run out...or we call a T. Either way the offending team does not gain. All other cases, like fouling, usually give the offended team a chance to score FTs.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
They don't necessarily benefit if the clock is already stopped.

In the original post, PA Coach explicitly stated that he did it to see the offensive set. That's a big advantage. That's why you used to see a delay warning in every close NBA game. Now it's an automatic T in the last 2 minutes. It's clearly an advantage, even if the clock is stopped.

Chuck

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

In the original post, PA Coach explicitly stated that he did it to see the offensive set. That's a big advantage. That's why you used to see a delay warning in every close NBA game. Now it's an automatic T in the last 2 minutes. It's clearly an advantage, even if the clock is stopped.

Chuck

For the NBA, it mostly agree with you. However, they knew it was going to happend so the teams would run a decoy play. Then after the warning, they would run the real play. Since it was such a silly dance, the NBA decided to eliminated it. Only way to do that is a T. No violation would have mattered to the defense.

For High School, I don't know that most teams would be able to adjust the defend the play to begin with on such a short time. If they called timeout, a new play could be called. Many player have alternate options in case the primary option is covered.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
For High School, I don't know that most teams would be able to adjust the defend the play to begin with on such a short time.

I'm not sure, Camron, but I think you just made my point for me. Since the offensive team (at the HS level) probably doesn't have a "decoy" play, and they wouldn't be able to adjust once the defense has seen their set-up, that seems to give a HUGE advantage to the defensive team that takes the delay warning.

I have a feeling that I misunderstood the point you were making above. But I think the advantage remains for the defense, even if the clock is stopped.

Chuck

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
They don't necessarily benefit if the clock is already stopped. The ruling that says to ignore it if the clock is running is to prevent the defense from stopping the clock in a situation when the clock would run out without the throwing even occuring...thus getting a chance to steal the ball that they would not otherwise have.

To call the violation will stop the clock and force the offense to actually make the throw-in. There would be no penalty for the infraction. So we either ignore it...letting time run out...or we call a T. Either way the offending team does not gain. All other cases, like fouling, usually give the offended team a chance to score FTs.

If it's a deliberate violation, with the aim of stopping the clock, that sounds like an Intentional, no...wait... it's not a foul... let's see... Could we make up an Intentional Violation, shoot two and give the ball back at the point of the inftaction?!

[dblref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

You must've missed Pedro's performance yesterday.

Chuck: I was on Cape Cod 3-5 July and noticed everyone was having a "fire sale" on Bosox stuff. Imagine, they actually had the gall to make fun of my YANKEES cap. Where was the hospitality?