After dunk board tap

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by asdf

Why you getting hung up on the word judgement?

In my judgement, as well as all of our interpreters from top to bottom, this act is always going to be intentional.

We had this discussion in an interp's meeting a few years back. The guy who brought the issue forward could not give an example where this would be unintentional. We wasted 20 minutes on the subject.......

The state I am from has no relevance in the matter.

I'm hung up on the word "judgment" because you are inferring that judgment does not apply to this particular call. Imo that's wrong. There may definitely be cases where an official may JUDGE that the slapping is unintentional. That judgment is completely up to the calling official and no one else. And if that official judges that the slapping was unintentional, then they have rules backing to NOT call a technical foul in that case. And the rules backing is NFHS rule 10-3-4(b) and case book play 10.3.5COMMENT.

Just because you say that in your judgment the act will always be intentional, that doesn't mean that everybody in the world has to agree with your judgment.

And if your state interpreter feels that is wrong, then in my opinion your state interpreter does not understand the rule.

Is that clear enough for you?

And note again that I'm not questioning your judgment. I'm questioning your inference that it isn't a judgment call.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm hung up on the word "judgment" because you are inferring that judgment does not apply to this particular call. Imo that's wrong. There may definitely be cases where an official may JUDGE that the slapping is unintentional. That judgment is completely up to the calling official and no one else. And if that official judges that the slapping was unintentional, then they have rules backing to NOT call a technical foul in that case. And the rules backing is NFHS rule 10-3-4(b) and case book play 10.3.5COMMENT.

Just because you say that in your judgment the act will always be intentional, that doesn't mean that everybody in the world has to agree with your judgment.

And if your state interpreter feels that is wrong, then in my opinion your state interpreter does not understand the rule.

Is that clear enough for you?

And note again that I'm not questioning your judgment. I'm questioning your inference that it isn't a judgment call.

Not to speak for JR, but to me this all comes back around to your statement that rule 10-3-4b "shall always" be enforced by a technical. Which I was trying to point out is not a correct statement. It may be a requirement for the OP but not every time.