Violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Get a visa to visit hell.

To whom do I apply? Maybe Jurassic Referee can send me a travel brochure?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Get a visa to visit hell. Apparently one of the benefits of living there is you are never wrong.

Another benefit is that in Hell you only have to discuss rules and you don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word. And oh yes, they do have blarges here in Hell too.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word.

Didn't Bill Clinton do something like that? And you're right, the discussions seemed endless.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Another benefit is that in Hell you only have to discuss rules and you don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word. And oh yes, they do have blarges here in Hell too.

And metal whistles on red lanyards? [That fit neatly under the collared shirts].

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Another benefit is that in Hell you only have to discuss rules and you don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word.

Meaningless and endless discussions! Ain't that the truth!!!!!

I look at this forum and there it is....dozens of threads on simple, basic questions that have been thoroughly and accurately answered. Yet, there they continue on, pages and pages of ridiculous discussions of the simplest, most mundane rules.

Obviously, this ain't Hell. Wait, let me save BillyMac the trouble. I'll post the pic.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Meaningless and endless discussions! Ain't that the truth! I look at this forum and there it is, dozens of threads on simple, basic questions that have been thoroughly and accurately answered. Yet, there they continue on, pages and pages of ridiculous discussions of the simplest, most mundane rules.

And yet, to our benefit, you keep logging on?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Another benefit is that in Hell you only have to discuss rules and you don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word. And oh yes, they do have blarges here in Hell too.

So is this your way of admitting that you were wrong?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So is this your way of admitting that you were wrong?

Yes, I was completely wrong to make any response at all to your post #20. I should have just ignored it. Live and learn.

And if you feel that my initial response to your post #20 was wrong also, you can have that one also without any further argument from me too.

Now everybody should be happy.

[BktBallRef]

Oh, I stay logged on. But it's rare you see me post after the 2nd or 3rd page.

Take this thread. I didn't post in it at all until JR pointed out how meaningless much of it was. Much of it is senseless.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And yet, to our benefit, you keep logging on?

Yes, it is to our benefit that he does so imo.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-35 says a player who is touching out of bounds is out of bounds.

9.2.5 B says A1 has the ball out of bounds but when he touches B1 inbounds he now has inbounds status.

Furthermore, 7-1-1 tells us that touching a person who is out of bounds does not cause a player who is inbounds to be out of bounds.

Yes, it's a contradiction. And?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, it's a contradiction. And?

And I thought that might be the reason for the confusion in the earlier post which resulted from the use of the phrase 100% out of bounds. Editorial revisions are made in the books pretty much every year. I thought this might be a likely place for one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And I thought that might be the reason for the confusion in the earlier post which resulted from the use of the phrase 100% out of bounds. Editorial revisions are made in the books pretty much every year. I thought this might be a likely place for one.

The rule is clear, so I'm not sure what sort of revision could possibly help. It's possible, but the confusion seems to stem from some sort of misconception that the ball's 3 dimmensional location is relevant.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is clear, so I'm not sure what sort of revision could possibly help.

9-2-5: The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court.

What does this mean? Thrower steps in with one foot. According to 4-35, this player is out of bounds. Has he carried the ball onto the court.

Proposed revision: The thrower shall not contact the inbounds area with the ball or any part of his person.

[Adam]

Gotcha. Either way, though, the OP is legal.