The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   my camp experience (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/5310-my-camp-experience.html)

A Pennsylvania Coach Mon Jul 01, 2002 01:39pm
Just returned from camps at Penn State last week. Spent Sunday to Thursday working individual camp, which was mostly coaching but included a little officiating. My first comment is that one-man is impossible. I was hustling my tuckus off but there was still way too much I couldn't see. And if I couldn't see it, I didn't call it, so there were a few trainwrecks with no whistle. One-man is even harder when you have the clock (a watch) and the arrow as well!

Thursday to Saturday was team camp. My assistant coaches brought the team up on Thursday. We had five games, all officiated by PIAA officials (and a few new guys). I only had one game with any complaints. Both guys were calling the game tightly, so at halftime I asked the one to loosen up a bit. Well, he did, but the other guy didn't. So for about four straight possessions, there were rebounding foul whistles, all at one end, since they weren't switching except on shooting fouls. How can you officiate fairly without switching? No two guys are going to call a game the same way.

We also did something called special situations, where in an hour we'd play out three situations (each of them twice, one starting on offense, one starting on defense). The situations would be something like 45 seconds left, down by 1, inbound under opponent's basket, for example. My team and I loved these, and I think the officials did too. We did pretty well on them. In one of the last ones we did, I had a player take an intentional delay of game by stepping on the line during an inbound with 2 seconds left so we could see the opponent's play. I gave the official a heads-up to watch for my player stepping on the line.

All-in-all a good experience. So far I've survived the entire summer without a negative word to an official, living up to my vow! I know it won't be so easy in December!

ChuckElias Mon Jul 01, 2002 02:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
In one of the last ones we did, I had a player take an intentional delay of game by stepping on the line during an inbound with 2 seconds left so we could see the opponent's play. I gave the official a heads-up to watch for my player stepping on the line.
Casebook 9.2.11 Comment: "In situations with the clock running and five or less [sic] seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic."

Coach, even tho this comment is addressing situations in which the clock is running and there are five seconds or fewer remaining in the game, the last sentence leads me to think that we could apply it to your situation as well. If the official stops the game to give the warning, your team has benefited from breaking the rules. I would be tempted to ignore the infraction unless contact was made with the inbounder.

In NBA rules, this is a T for delay, with no warning.

Chuck

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 01, 2002 03:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
In one of the last ones we did, I had a player take an intentional delay of game by stepping on the line during an inbound with 2 seconds left so we could see the opponent's play. I gave the official a heads-up to watch for my player stepping on the line.
Casebook 9.2.11 Comment: "In situations with the clock running and five or less [sic] seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic."

Coach, even tho this comment is addressing situations in which the clock is running and there are five seconds or fewer remaining in the game, the last sentence leads me to think that we could apply it to your situation as well. If the official stops the game to give the warning, your team has benefited from breaking the rules. I would be tempted to ignore the infraction unless contact was made with the inbounder.

In NBA rules, this is a T for delay, with no warning.

Chuck
Chuck,I don't think that there is anything in the book that will allow you to call a T in this specific situation-where the clock is stopped and a defensive player crosses the OOB plane without contacting the ball or the player with the ball.The current language says that it's a warning only,to be then followed by a T.It's a loophole,but if enough coaches start to use it,I'm sure that it will be filled.You can't penalise a coach for using the current rules to his advantage.

ChuckElias Mon Jul 01, 2002 04:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic."
You can't penalise a coach for using the current rules to his advantage.
I'm not sure I would call it, I just said I would be tempted. :) 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? :D ) 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

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 01, 2002 04:51pm
[/B][/QUOTE]
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? :D ) seems to be that you shouldn't be able to get an advantage from breaking the delay rules.

[/B][/QUOTE]I agree with you completely,Chuck!The advantage that the coach is getting in this case should probably be illegal,but he's smart enough to use the current rules to gain a legal advantage for his team.Can't do anything else but tip my hat to him,and wait for the rule to change.The NBA rule seems like an appropriate solution.

JRutledge Mon Jul 01, 2002 05:36pm
Perfect example.....................
 
of how the casebook clarifies or has a ruling not <b>specificially covered</b> in the rulebook. It might not be the most popular ruling, but I see why it is there.

Peace

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 01, 2002 05:55pm
Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
of how the casebook clarifies or has a ruling not <b>specificially covered</b> in the rulebook. It might not be the most popular ruling, but I see why it is there.

Peace
Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above? :confused:

BktBallRef Mon Jul 01, 2002 09:29pm
Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I'm not sure I would call it, I just said I would be tempted. 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.
I don't see this any differently than fouling in the final minutes to stop the clock. The defense is gaining an advantage by fouling, yet we're very careful about calling such fouls intentional. Maybe the NF will make it a POE someday! :)

Bottom line - I wouldn't call a T in the situation PA Coach described either.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above? :confused:
Woody, see Camron's post under Padgett's thread. Pick whichever of the 3 points listed that applies and you'll get your answer.

Dan_ref Mon Jul 01, 2002 09:33pm
Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Woody, see Camron's post under Padgett's thread. Pick whichever of the 3 points listed that applies and you'll get your answer.
I think we can just call it Camron's Law from now on. It
does seem to cover all possibilites!

JRutledge Tue Jul 02, 2002 12:59am
Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
of how the casebook clarifies or has a ruling not <b>specificially covered</b> in the rulebook. It might not be the most popular ruling, but I see why it is there.

Peace
Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above? :confused:

I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond? :confused:

Peace

rainmaker Tue Jul 02, 2002 01:33am
Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge

I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond? :confused:

Peace
[/B]
These guys are doing you a favor, Jeff, dignifying your comments with rebuttals. I wouldn't push them too far in the no-response direction.

JRutledge Tue Jul 02, 2002 02:21am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge

I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond? :confused:

Peace
These guys are doing you a favor, Jeff, dignifying your comments with rebuttals. I wouldn't push them too far in the no-response direction. [/B]
Julie,

The favor they are giving me is a laugh. That is all it is worth at this point.

Peace

Jurassic Referee Tue Jul 02, 2002 04:38am
Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
[/B][/QUOTE]
I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond? :confused:


[/B][/QUOTE]Well,Rut,I am not always right and you are not always wrong.However,when either one of us is obviously wrong,we both have to expect to be corrected-and we certainly will be.There's too many sharp guys and gals tuning in here to expect otherwise.That's why this forum is a good learning experience for all of us,or should be,-and that's why I respond.Believe it or not,there's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.It doesn't bother me,but it sureashell seems to bother you.You absolutely refuse to do it.
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans.Just be thankful we haven't started on the Cubbies,yet!:D

ChuckElias Tue Jul 02, 2002 11:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans. :D
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

Dan_ref Tue Jul 02, 2002 11:52am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans. :D
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
Faded early this year, no? :p

JRutledge Tue Jul 02, 2002 12:47pm
For you JR.
 
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 <b>specificially covered in the rulebook</b>. 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 Tue Jul 02, 2002 12:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans. :D
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? :D
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 Tue Jul 02, 2002 01:06pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Faded early this year, no? :p
You must've missed Pedro's performance yesterday. ;)

Dan_ref Tue Jul 02, 2002 01:42pm
Re: For you JR.
 
Quote:
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 <b>specificially covered in the rulebook</b>. 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 Tue Jul 02, 2002 02:06pm
Re: Re: For you JR.
 
Quote:
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.:D

Dan_ref Tue Jul 02, 2002 02:32pm
Re: Re: Re: For you JR.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
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.:D [/B][/QUOTE]

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

BktBallRef Tue Jul 02, 2002 03:12pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans. :D
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! :p

rockyroad Tue Jul 02, 2002 03:33pm
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 Tue Jul 02, 2002 03:54pm
Quote:
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 Tue Jul 02, 2002 04:52pm
Quote:
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? :D ) 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 Tue Jul 02, 2002 07:20pm
Quote:
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 Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:25am
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
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
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 Thu Jul 04, 2002 11:31am
Quote:
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 Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:02pm
Quote:
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 Sat Jul 13, 2002 10:51pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Faded early this year, no? :p
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? :D

Mark Dexter Sun Jul 14, 2002 03:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by dblref
Imagine, they actually had the gall to make fun of my YANKEES cap. Where was the hospitality? :D
Dblref, they didn't kill you for wearing that?

I'm disappointed (not that I want you dead - but the fans are slacking!)

dblref Sun Jul 14, 2002 04:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Quote:
Originally posted by dblref
Imagine, they actually had the gall to make fun of my YANKEES cap. Where was the hospitality? :D
Dblref, they didn't kill you for wearing that?

I'm disappointed (not that I want you dead - but the fans are slacking!)
No, they just kept saying "Yankees suck!!" I also heard the expression "best team money can buy" several times. My wife did not even want to walk with me because of the "abuse". I have been married to that lovely woman for 35 years, so I guess I am really a glutton for punishment. :D

Mark Dexter Sun Jul 14, 2002 08:31pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by dblref

No, they just kept saying "Yankees suck!!" I also heard the expression "best team money can buy" several times
Nothing wrong with preaching the truth!

Can I get an amen, Chuck??

:p

BktBallRef Sun Jul 14, 2002 08:38pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by dblref
I have been married to that lovely woman for 35 years, so I guess I am really a glutton for punishment. :D
Sounds like she's the glutton for punishment. :D

Sorry, but you set yourself up for that one! ;)

ChuckElias Sun Jul 14, 2002 09:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Can I get an amen, Chuck??
AMEN!!

rockyroad Sun Jul 14, 2002 10:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Can I get an amen, Chuck??
AMEN!!

Even we Mariners fans will give an Amen to that!!!

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 15, 2002 05:23am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by rockyroad
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Can I get an amen, Chuck??
AMEN!!

Even we Mariners fans will give an Amen to that!!!
Geeze,guys,you wanna know what the big difference here is?

Class!!!

You guys have "bobblehead" days. The Yankees have "Celibriduck" days.Yup,this Wednesday is "Jason Giambi Celibriduck Day" at the Stadium!You get this waycool plastic duckie,with Giambi's body on it.You throw that sucker in the tub with you,and you can do all kinds of things.You can make waves and sail it to the end of the tub;you can push it under and watch it pop right back up;you can even blow bubbles around it and watch it bob up and down(that one can be a little crude,depending on how you make the bubbles).Yessir,you don't see that in Seattle and Boston!

Why,they asked?

1)If they gave you an Ichiro celibiducky,it'd probably bomb your soap when you're not looking!
2)All the Bosox celibriduckies got recalled by the factory.Seems they have this tendency to sink completely out of sight every September!
:D

mick Mon Jul 15, 2002 06:54am
Re: For you JR.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
I have had this very discussion with officials that ... have achieved much more than you or I, so I guess they are wrong too.
Actually, Rut... very few officials have approached Jurassic Ref's officiating experience. ;)
mick

dblref Mon Jul 15, 2002 08:10am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by rockyroad
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Can I get an amen, Chuck??
AMEN!!

Even we Mariners fans will give an Amen to that!!!
Geeze,guys,you wanna know what the big difference here is?

Class!!!

You guys have "bobblehead" days. The Yankees have "Celibriduck" days.Yup,this Wednesday is "Jason Giambi Celibriduck Day" at the Stadium!You get this waycool plastic duckie,with Giambi's body on it.You throw that sucker in the tub with you,and you can do all kinds of things.You can make waves and sail it to the end of the tub;you can push it under and watch it pop right back up;you can even blow bubbles around it and watch it bob up and down(that one can be a little crude,depending on how you make the bubbles).Yessir,you don't see that in Seattle and Boston!

Why,they asked?

1)If they gave you an Ichiro celibriducky,it'd probably bomb your soap when you're not looking!
2)All the Bosox celibriduckies got recalled by the factory.Seems they have this tendency to sink completely out of sight every September!
:D
Don't know about you guys, but when I have company in the tub, it sure ain't a Jason Giabi Celibiduck. :D

dblref Mon Jul 15, 2002 08:12am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect example.....................
 
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by dblref
I have been married to that lovely woman for 35 years, so I guess I am really a glutton for punishment. :D
Sounds like she's the glutton for punishment. :D

Sorry, but you set yourself up for that one! ;)
You're right Tony. I think she stays with me because I let her do whatever she wants to and I give (actually she takes) all my $$$$$$$. :D

JRutledge Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:00pm
Years had nothing to do with my statement.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
I have had this very discussion with officials that ... have achieved much more than you or I, so I guess they are wrong too.
Actually, Rut... very few officials have approached Jurassic Ref's officiating experience. ;)
mick
Level mick, not years. There is a difference, at least to me there is. If I have pro and D1 college officials level officials telling me what it takes to be an official, do you think I might take their advice over others that may not have achieved that level?

I just attended a Football camp this weekend and the Supervisor of Officials for the NCAA and Big Ten Dave Parry was there, along with several Big 10 Officials (at least two crew Chiefs), Gateway Officials and MAC Officials. Every D1 guy I talked to about achieving that level or becoming a good official, were the same things I said here. They did not say this because I made it up, they said it because that is what they live by and how they got to the point or level they officiate. This was a Football Camp and the very same things that they talk about in achieving that level or maintaining that level, apply to the same things I have heard from D1 Basketball Officials. But when I talk about "presence" or dealing with people as bing very important, I get ripped appart. That is fine, but if D1 guys are telling me in Football, "rules knowledge will not save you, your personality or the way you deal with people will." I guess a D1 Football Crew Chief does not know what success is all about? That was the point.


Peace

mick Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:05pm
Re: Years had nothing to do with my statement.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
I have had this very discussion with officials that ... have achieved much more than you or I, so I guess they are wrong too.
Actually, Rut... very few officials have approached Jurassic Ref's officiating experience. ;)
mick
Level mick, not years.
YU.P., Rut.
Level. That's what I'm talking about.
He's been where you may git, but I'm too old and too far away to git.
In fact, if he had a feather and you and I had his resume, all three of us would be tickled. ;)
mick

JRutledge Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:34pm
Re: Re: Years had nothing to do with my statement.
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick
Quote:

YU.P., Rut.
Level. That's what I'm talking about.
He's been where you may git, but I'm too old and too far away to git.
In fact, if he had a feather and you and I had his resume, all three of us would be tickled. ;)
mick
Mick,

Everything you say might be true. But the officials in my area have achieved all levels. Because we have so many college conferences, so many college conference assignors, so many pro officials whose origin comes from this area, JR is not someone I would be listening to only. That is why when you look at Referee Magazine and see the number of officials that have achieved Pro and College levels, you see many are from the area I call home. Not only that, many are members of an association that I belong to. So I rub elbows with guys that are all over the map on experience and levels. I have never heard one of them say the things that JR does consistently about what it takes to be an official at those levels. Maybe it is a coincidence, maybe not. I will let you decide that. I have never achieved that level, and maybe I never will. But at least I know that what I say comes from officials much greater than myself. ;)

Peace

mick Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:42pm
been there and doing that.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
I will let you decide that. I have never achieved that level, and maybe I never will. But at least I know that what I say comes from officials much greater than myself. ;)
Rut,
I live there. <u>Everything</u> I learn from other officials "comes from officials much greater than myself".:)
mick

JRutledge Mon Jul 15, 2002 01:03pm
To hard to invent the wheel.
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Rut,
I live there. <u>Everything</u> I learn from other officials "comes from officials much greater than myself".:)
mick
That is why I am the biggest thief. I always (do not have a heart attack Tony) talk about things that come other official's ideas and philosophies. I never (yes Tony never too :p) talk about things I have not heard other officials talk about or have as "what they do" to be successful.

Peace

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 15, 2002 02:10pm
Re: been there and doing that.
 
[/B][/QUOTE]

Rut,
I live there. <u>Everything</u> I learn from other officials "comes from officials much greater than myself".:)
mick


[/B][/QUOTE]Well,I was gonna stick to celibriducks to-day for my own sanity,but I couldn't let this one pass.Mainly because it's sheer horsepuckey!
Mick,you know the rules better than most officials.You know how to apply 'em,and you have the judgement to apply them properly.All that is obvious from your posts and talking to you.I check into this forum so that I can keep current(and to have a little fun).I've learned from you,and I've passed things that you've sent to me along to guys in my association so that they could learn,also.

I repeat-- the above statement from you is horsepucky! :D

JRutledge Mon Jul 15, 2002 02:16pm
Re: Re: been there and doing that.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


I repeat-- the above statement from you is horsepucky! :D [/B][/QUOTE]


This is why I could care less about your resume. Because if that is horsepucky, so is your resume. ;)

Peace

mick Mon Jul 15, 2002 02:34pm
YU.P.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
...the above statement from you is horsepucky! :D [/B][/QUOTE]

That, sir, is often what the coaches say.

johnSandlin Mon Jul 15, 2002 03:39pm
Mick,

However, horsepucky statements are also made officials as well. Do not always blame it on coaches. Sometimes officials start the problems. Just food for thought.

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 15, 2002 03:43pm
Re: Re: Re: been there and doing that.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


I repeat-- the above statement from you is horsepucky! :D

This is why I could care less about your resume. Because if that is horsepucky, so is your resume. ;)

Peace [/B][/QUOTE]Rut,I was talking solely to mick,not you.This had nothing to do with you or any of your opinions at all.I gave mick my opinion only about what I thought was false modesty on his part.Aren't I allowed to do that now?I have great respect for mick's thoughts and opinions.That's got absolutely nothing to do with anybody's resume,-mine, mick's,your's or anyone elses.

All resumes mean squat!I make up my own mind about whose word I respect on this board,and whose I don't.

Dan_ref Mon Jul 15, 2002 03:54pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: been there and doing that.
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
...
All resumes mean squat!...
Funny how the guys with the best resume say this the most often. It's always the wannabe's who say things like "I make more money than you..", "I know more people than you...", "I got a better schedule than you..."

Just seems to be a fact of life.

mick Mon Jul 15, 2002 03:59pm
Quote:
Originally posted by johnSandlin
Mick,

However, horsepucky statements are also made officials as well. Do not always blame it on coaches. Sometimes officials start the problems. Just food for thought.
Aw, c'mon, John!
That certainly can't happen in Michigan!
mick

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 15, 2002 04:22pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: been there and doing that.
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
...
All resumes mean squat!...
Funny how the guys with the best resume say this the most often. It's always the wannabe's who say things like "I make more money than you..", "I know more people than you...", "I got a better schedule than you..."

Just seems to be a fact of life.
Dan'l,did you know that Wednesday was Jason Giambi celibriduck day at the Shrine?You going?

Some things are way more important than resumes and all that crap!:D

JRutledge Mon Jul 15, 2002 05:22pm
I was too.
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee




Rut,I was talking solely to mick,not you.This had nothing to do with you or any of your opinions at all.I gave mick my opinion only about what I thought was false modesty on his part.Aren't I allowed to do that now?I have great respect for mick's thoughts and opinions.That's got absolutely nothing to do with anybody's resume,-mine, mick's,your's or anyone elses.

All resumes mean squat!I make up my own mind about whose word I respect on this board,and whose I don't.
Good for you JR. I was talking to mick solely too. But considering that this is not email, I meant for all to read.

Life will go on. :rolleyes:

Peace

BktBallRef Mon Jul 15, 2002 05:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I repeat-- the above statement from you is horsepucky! :D
This is why I could care less about your resume. Because if that is horsepucky, so is your resume. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

I guess this is the "Stupid Rutledge Quote of the Week." :(

You don't even know what the he11 he's talking about. Jurassic is simply telling mick not to underestimate himself, that he is a very good official himself. Others can learn from him. I guess you don't agree with his assessment.

Honestly mick, I don't know what you see in this guy. :(

mick Mon Jul 15, 2002 06:36pm

:rolleyes:

Why, I like both you guys ... Tony and Rut.

One from the great state of North Carolina where my kids have chosen to live.
One from the great state of Illinois where my sister's family chooses to live.

You both are trying to be the best that you can be.

Got an e-mail from BK today from the great state of Texas where a bunch of muthas choose to live.

Life's good, but it is short. :)

mick

Dan_ref Mon Jul 15, 2002 08:46pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: been there and doing that.
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:

Dan'l,did you know that Wednesday was Jason Giambi celibriduck day at the Shrine?You going?

Some things are way more important than resumes and all that crap!:D
Ducks. My son's GF keeps buying him ducks: celebriducks,
stuffed ducks, wooden ducks, metal ducks, if I see one more
m'f'ing duck my f'ing head will explode! OK, I feel better
now. What was the question?

Dan_ref Mon Jul 15, 2002 08:48pm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

I guess this is the "Stupid Rutledge Quote of the Week." :(
The week? You mean we got to keep track of a whole week of 'em before voting???

Jurassic Referee Mon Jul 15, 2002 09:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: been there and doing that.
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:

Dan'l,did you know that Wednesday was Jason Giambi celibriduck day at the Shrine?You going?

Some things are way more important than resumes and all that crap!:D
Ducks. My son's GF keeps buying him ducks: celebriducks,
stuffed ducks, wooden ducks, metal ducks, if I see one more
m'f'ing duck my f'ing head will explode! OK, I feel better
now. What was the question?
Uh,I think I'll just duck that question,Dan!

BktBallRef Mon Jul 15, 2002 09:09pm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

I guess this is the "Stupid Rutledge Quote of the Week." :(
The week? You mean we got to keep track of a whole week of 'em before voting???
:D

Dan, it's early, just Monday. I figured we'd go ahead and get it outta the way! Then we won't have to keep up with'em! ;)

mick, you're a saint, no doubt about it! :)

JRutledge Tue Jul 16, 2002 12:04am
LOL!!!!
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Honestly mick, I don't know what you see in this guy. :(

There you go Tony, thinking the world looks at things thru your eyes. Such a pity. :D

But life will go on.

Peace

BktBallRef Tue Jul 16, 2002 12:19am
Yeah, Rutledge, there I go again.

JRutledge Tue Jul 16, 2002 01:26am
OK Johnny Gill.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Yeah, Rutledge, there I go again.
Life will go on. :p

Peace

BktBallRef Tue Jul 16, 2002 09:26am
I never doubted it.

johnSandlin Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:37am
Mick,

I can assume your response back to me was a sarcastic wrong. If you are believing that officials don't start "horsepucky", then you would be wrong. Unfortunately, officials start some their own problems.
Here are a couple of sayings that I learned at camp this summer that I think fit for this topic.
"If you cannot explain it, don't say it"
"Don't go often, and don't stay long."

Food for thought.

mick Wed Jul 17, 2002 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by johnSandlin
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by johnSandlin
Mick,

However, horsepucky statements are also made officials as well. Do not always blame it on coaches. Sometimes officials start the problems. Just food for thought.
Aw, c'mon, John!
That certainly can't happen in Michigan!
mick
Mick,

I can assume your response back to me was a sarcastic wrong. If you are believing that officials don't start "horsepucky", then you would be wrong. Unfortunately, officials start some their own problems.
Here are a couple of sayings that I learned at camp this summer that I think fit for this topic.
"If you cannot explain it, don't say it"
"Don't go often, and don't stay long."

Food for thought.
John,
Please do not assume and confuse sarcasm with facetiousness.

Of course, even in Michigan, officials can verbally initiate a hissing contest. That goes <u>without</u> saying.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, though.
<li>"If you cannot explain it, don't say it"
<li>"Don't go often, and don't stay long."

mick

mikesears Wed Jul 17, 2002 12:48pm
Quote:
[B
<li>"Don't go often, and don't stay long."

[/B]
Sounds like good advice for an official calling a foul. Don't go to the table often and don't stay around long because a coach may chew your a**.

mikesears Wed Jul 17, 2002 12:48pm
Quote:

<li>"Don't go often, and don't stay long."
Sounds like good advice for an official calling a foul. Don't go to the table often and don't stay around long because a coach may chew your a**.

mick Wed Jul 17, 2002 01:29pm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mikesears
Quote:

Sounds like good advice for an official calling a foul. Don't go to the table often and don't stay around long because a coach may chew your a**.
Yes, Mike. That is good advice.
I am lost on how it relates to this thread.
But, then, ...oh well.
mick


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1