Messy situation

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

We are having a friendly debate and then you resort to this! WOW!

I think you're not having a friendly debate as much as an argument (in the Monty Python-esque sense of the word).

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you're not having a friendly debate as much as an argument (in the Monty Python-esque sense of the word).

Whatever you want to call it, it was friendly from my end.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you're not having a friendly debate as much as an argument (in the Monty Python-esque sense of the word).

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

My *favorite* Python sketch.

My feeling on the thread is that there are times when you have to officiate and inject a little common sense on the court. Others think that's the slippery slope to anarchy. Do what works for you, the world isn't going to end either way.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

No, that would be abuse. Plenty of that in this business, as well.


Shut your festering gob, you tit! Somebody try that instead of the stop sign.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My feeling on the thread is that there are times when you have to officiate and inject a little common sense on the court. Others think that's the slippery slope to anarchy. Do what works for you, the world isn't going to end either way.

Well, that's my feeling on the OP, but my feeling is that the thread could be summed up as "You can't use rule 2-3; I'M using rule 2-3."

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A bookkeeping error does not include the FTs that were shot. A bookkeeping error led to the T, sure, but the FTs themselves are not a bookkeeping error.

No argument with this, but it begets the question "Were the FTs merited?" If the T was assessed due to a bookkeeping error, logic says that both the T and resulting FTs are unmerited.

It seems to me that since the T was a result of the bookkeeping error, it can be corrected(rescinded) any time until the R approves the final score per 2-11-11. The resulting FT's, on the other hand, would fall into the "unmerited" category and must be corrected within the time constraints specified under 2-10.

Just playing devil's advocate.......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

No argument with this, but it begets the question "Were the FTs merited?" If the T was assessed due to a bookkeeping error, logic says that both the T and resulting FTs are unmerited.

It seems to me that since the T was a result of the bookkeeping error, it can be corrected(rescinded) any time until the R approves the final score per 2-11-11. The resulting FT's, on the other hand, would fall into the "unmerited" category and must be corrected within the time constraints specified under 2-10.

Just playing devil's advocate.......

Interesting, but the T itself is not a bookkeeping error.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My feeling on the thread is that there are times when you have to officiate and inject a little common sense on the court. Others think that's the slippery slope to anarchy.

I think that's why what we do is more of an art than a science sometime.

My recommendation in these gray areas is to pick what you think is the right thing to do, do it quickly, and then tell whoever you report to about it and let him damnwell worry about it.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting, but the T itself is not a bookkeeping error.

No, but it is both administrative and the direct result of the bookkeeping error. This is where I believe common sense, rule 2-3 and doing what is right come into play.

It's a good discussion - Might ask our SRI when I see him next......

Just had another crazy thought (and no, I haven't been anywhere near BillyMac's egg nog) - how about a rule change that lets us charge the home book with an administrative T in a situation like this where their error causes a penalty/disadvantage to the opponents....sort of a way to even things up.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

No, but it is both administrative and the direct result of the bookkeeping error. This is where I believe common sense, rule 2-3 and doing what is right come into play.

It's a good discussion - Might ask our SRI when I see him next......

Just had another crazy thought (and no, I haven't been anywhere near BillyMac's egg nog) - how about a rule change that lets us charge the home book with an administrative T in a situation like this where their error causes a penalty/disadvantage to the opponents....sort of a way to even things up.....

That might work well in most regular season games, but not when the home school isn't providing the official scorer.

[BillyMac]

In my games, if a technical foul is charged in error, due to a bookkeeping error, then I'm treating the foul shots resulting from that error like any other correctable error time limit, that is, maybe they'll count, and maybe they won't, depending on the statute of limitations for "real" correctable errors. I'll take back the charged foul itself, at any time, after I'm convinced that it was an actual bookkeeping error. Do I have citations for this? No. Just common sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my games, if a technical foul is charged in error, due to a bookkeeping error, then I'm treating the foul shots resulting from that error like any other correctable error time limit, that is, maybe they'll count, and maybe they won't, depending on the statute of limitations for "real" correctable errors. I'll take back the charged foul itself, at any time, after I'm convinced that it was an actual bookkeeping error. Do I have citations for this? No. Just common sense.

This is what Tim suggested, and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.

Question, though. In the case of an excessive timeout, where the coach has already paid the penalty for the timeout but the book later tells you they were wrong. I see no reason to rescind the T here, as all it does take away a timeout that the coach has already "purchased" with the T penalty.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I see no reason to rescind the T here.

Team fouls toward the bonus ???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Team fouls toward the bonus ???

Maybe, but the coach has already purchased the 6th TO even though he used it out of order. Take away the T, and now you've taken away the extra TO. All for one less foul towards the bonus?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Maybe, but the coach has already purchased the 6th TO even though he used it out of order. Take away the T, and now you've taken away the extra TO. All for one less foul towards the bonus?

If you insist he can't have both (the timeout and the t effects gone), then why not give him the choice. (Though I think you can say that he paid for the timeout with the free throws and lose the rest. Sure it was a cheap timeout but since he didn't get to choose whether to pay ...)
________
NEXIUM CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT