What's The Correct Call ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Swell. I'm basing my entire point on the whistling the play on the pick up, not the bats. Indeed the bats are not control, so I have nothing until the ball is picked up on this play.

Sorry.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sorry.

Don't you apologize, Billy. *I* misread it!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Swell. I'm basing my entire point on the whistling the play on the pick up, not the bats.

Indeed the bats are not control, so I have nothing until the ball is picked up on this play.

Sorry, but the pickup is merely the retrieval of a fumble. Perfectly legal. What precedes is irrelevant as long as player control is never re-established.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can't debate the merits of the situation so you go and pull completely unrelated stuff out of the past...Intelligent, very intelligent. Keep showing your true colors.

You've yet to tell me why the two case plays I've referenced where a player NOT holding the ball is called for traveling despite your insistence that it can't be. You're the one off-base and ignoring the precedent that is in black and white in the rule/case book that considers a player to be holding the ball when they deliberately do something to circumvent the travel rule.

In the thread you're pulling that stuff from, the official in question wasn't anywhere close and they weren't unusual situations....he just totally messed up. No one has disputed that....the only issue was the behavior of the coach....which we (including me) all agree was not acceptable and deserved a T. My comments that the official deserved the grief he got also stand....he showed a complete lack of basic rules knowledge and made stuff up with no basis on anything. It wasn't like he was taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Regardless of your desire to back officials blindly, it is possible for both of them to be wrong.

Gee, all I did was quote you verbatim, Camron. Are you calling yourself a liar?

I'm glad that you're still so adamant also that any official who screws up some rules deserves all the abuse any coach can give him. I'm glad because I'll never have to work with someone like you.

When another official does it, he has a complete lack of rules knowledge and makes stuff up with no basis for anything. But when you do the exact same thing, you're taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Hey, who cares if your extrapolations go directly against existing rules? Hell, that don't make no nevermind if you're the one doing it instead of some other official, does it?


Yup, I got it.

Your very own words show your true colors very nicely imo, Camron.

'Nuff said.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, but the pickup is merely the retrieval of a fumble. Perfectly legal. What precedes is irrelevant as long as player control is never re-established.

Well, upon a second look at looking at the O.P., I have nothing. I see perhaps one or two interrupted dribbles, but nothing more.

My apologies for any confusion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, all I did was quote you verbatim, Camron. Are you calling yourself a liar?

I'm glad that you're still so adamant also that any official who screws up some rules deserves all the abuse any coach can give him. I'm glad because I'll never have to work with someone like you.

When another official does it, he has a complete lack of rules knowledge and makes stuff up with no basis for anything. But when you do the exact same thing, you're taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Hey, who cares if your extrapolations go directly against existing rules? Hell, that don't make no nevermind if you're the one doing it instead of some other official, does it?


Yup, I got it.

Your very own words show your true colors very nicely imo, Camron.

'Nuff said.

Are you so insecure or incapable of intelligent debate that you have to resort to mudslinging, personalizing, and taking things completely out of context while avoiding the points of the actual argument? You're basically admitting you're wrong when you do that. Grow up and stick to the point.

You said you can't travel without holding the ball.

Now, show me where the cited case plays are wrong.....the ones that end with a ruling of traveling even though the player, just like the play I was responding to, is not holding the ball at the time of the foot movement. Are you really saying the NFHS is wrong?

If you're capable, show my why. (I'm sure you'll dodge the question again and call me some other names.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, all I did was quote you verbatim, Camron. Are you calling yourself a liar?

I'm glad that you're still so adamant also that any official who screws up some rules deserves all the abuse any coach can give him. I'm glad because I'll never have to work with someone like you.

When another official does it, he has a complete lack of rules knowledge and makes stuff up with no basis for anything. But when you do the exact same thing, you're taking an unusual play and extrapolating from existing rulings that were close to the same thing. Hey, who cares if your extrapolations go directly against existing rules? Hell, that don't make no nevermind if you're the one doing it instead of some other official, does it?


Yup, I got it.

Your very own words show your true colors very nicely imo, Camron.

'Nuff said.

Are you so insecure or incapable of intelligent debate that you have to resort to mudslinging and personalizing while avoiding the points of the actual argument? You're basically admitting you're wrong when you do that. Stick to the point, if you can.

You said you can't travel without holding the ball. Case plays were cited that prove you wrong (it may be the general case, but there are exceptions).

Now, show me where the cited case plays are wrong.....the ones that end with a ruling of traveling even though the player, just like the play I was responding to, is not holding the ball at the time of the foot movement. Are you really saying the NFHS is wrong?

If you're capable, show my why. (I'm sure you'll dodge the question again and call me some other names.)

I'm pretty sure that if I had said it was legal, you would have taken the other side just to argue.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I see perhaps one or two interrupted dribbles.

Interesting. Very interesting.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you're capable, show my why. (I'm sure you'll dodge the question again and call me some other names.)

I'm pretty sure that if I had said it was legal, you would have taken the other side just to argue.

I don't believe I've called you any names yet. I've just let your very own words do all the talking. You get awfully excited when all that really happened was someone quoting your exact words.

And I think that I'll just leave it at that. There's no need for me to discuss anything further with you. There's no upside for either of us.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Interesting. Very interesting.

I enjoy the reference. Which one of us is Wolfgang in this analogy?

[Judtech]

Here is a puddin stirer:
IF you judge player control by the ball coming to rest in a players hand.
THEN Why could you not judge that the ball came to rest in the hand of the player who rolled the ball?
This could also be relevant to the 84 Foot Rebound Tip Hypothetical.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I don't believe I've called you any names yet. I've just let your very own words do all the talking. You get awfully excited when all that really happened was someone quoting your exact words.

And I think that I'll just leave it at that. There's no need for me to discuss anything further with you. There's no upside for either of us.

As expected, dodge the question again. How pathetic.

All you can do is distract the discussion from your mistake by trying to knock down anyone who opposes you. Your juvenile bullying tactics might work on rookies but some people are wise enough to see through your crap.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I enjoy the reference. Which one of us is Wolfgang in this analogy?

Me. Just ignore the "stupid" part. Couldn't find a clip without it.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As expected, dodge the question again. How pathetic.

All you can do is distract the discussion from your mistake by trying to knock down anyone who opposes you. Your juvenile bullying tactics might work on rookies but some people are wise enough to see through your crap.

Made me think of a great line from SCROOGED w/Bill Murray:
As he is in an elevator, the Ghost of Christmas Future is invading his space:
"Back off big guy, that move might work with the chicks but not with me!"

(other great line: "Have you tried staples?")

No back to our regularly scheduled thread

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just ignore the "stupid" part.

Why? I find it applicable on my end.