Inbounds play - inbounder delays entry

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Whether we agree or disagree with the rule is irrelevant

This is a discussion board, we're always discussion rules we'd like to see changed.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a discussion board, we're always discussion rules we'd like to see changed.

Snaq,

I agree, but there's a big difference in discussing the pros and cons of a rule some might like to see changed, and advocating outright ignoring it, or worse yet, making up their own rules (both of which have occurred in this thread - and no, CMHCoachNRef, I'm not referring to you). Unless/until a rule is changed, it is our job to enforce what is - to do otherwise is both irresponsible and unprofessional.

Did you ever consider that the best way to get the rule changed might be to enforce it? If enough folks don't like the results of a rule being enforced as it's supposed to be, maybe that will provide more impetus for change...

[26 Year Gap]

If the whistle is blown, then only one call can be made. A technical foul. To assess the wrong penalty is no different than the AAU coach being 10 ft onot the court and his team getting the ball. I think the penalty should be changed. I have completed the survey last spring as such. I have written to my interpreter each year while he was on the rules committee. It was considered a few seasons back, but the committee was hung up on the other delays having a technical foul assessed and could not come up with a consensus. A note would be sufficient.

That said, I refer back to my first sentence.

[mutantducky]

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist. take that Scalia

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it................

Your can get away with a lot if that's the only excuse you need.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist. take that Scalia

If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist.

Sad.

Just sad.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist. take that Scalia

You try to insult me with a compliment?

I guess it must be a suggestion book to you.

[mutantducky]

ha, how true
"If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all. "

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

"If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all. "

And if you didn't make any calls at all, your percentage of correct calls would probably go up.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist. take that Scalia

I didn't realize Calvinball had officials.