Originally Posted by RandyBrown
(Post 743759)
Snaq: Your're alright. I wouldn't read it, either--not without a brandy, my easy-chair, and a fire, at least. Thanks for the time, again.
No, not "just" the rules. I'm saying, not absent them. Quoting/citing focuses thread participants on the exact language. It lets everyone know where everyone else is starting from. It gets us all talking about the sames thing: the rule(s), as written, as opposed to our own individual summaries of the rule(s) tangled with our individual interpetations of same. The latter makes it difficult to know if the speaker is basing a contention on the same rule(s) the reader may have in mind or on a different rule(s), or whether the contention is based solely on interpretation. Even if we all had every rule memorized, verbatim, we still wouldn't necessarily know which of them the speaker was using for support.
For example, you reference the dead-ball contact rule. I assume you are referring to 4-19-1's subnote, but I don't know that. I don't know the rules well enough to know that there isn't another rule mentioning dead-ball contact, or that I haven't since forgotten it if I once knew it. If this forum is only for those who have mastered the rules, then I'm not sure what you all have left to talk about. If it is also for those who have not mastered the rules, and doubt they ever will, then quotes/cites make the threads, and learning, more efficient.
As far as my specific use of "incidental" in the context of 4-19-1's subnote, you haven't moved me. I understand you haven't previously made the connection between the two, but that's not an argument. You don't argue that the subnote's contact does not conform to the stated definition of "incidental", nor do you provide a specific example of the subnote's contact that does not meet incidental's definition. I don't agree that just because the word "incidental" is not used in the subnote, the contact described doesn't fall under the larger definition of incidental. To flip it on you, they could have included the word, couldn't they have, without any change in substance, i.e., couldn't they have said, "This contact should be ruled incidental unless intentional or flagrant" and accomplished the same result? I don't see any difference. The definition of "incidental" does not limit itself to live-ball contact, that I noticed. To convince me, I think you would have to give me an example of the subnote's contact that did not meet incidental's definition. [Reminder: I'm not saying I'm not incorrectly using the term, only that I don't think you have shown me as much.]
Regarding intent of the rules, I think you miss. I agree with all that you say, factually. The Federation uses those facts to arrive at a very different prescription, however. The say you only see all that contact, because that is the monster you, yourselves, have created. Now, parents, coaches, ADs, and state associations are *****ing (actually, for at least the last five years in my state, I've been told). Your regional-difference remark is a symptom of what the Federation is telling us to right. Rules application should be uniform throughout. There should be no regional difference. They are saying there shouldn't be all that contact you speak of on the court, that officials are encouraging it, by not calling it, which then leads us to rough play. I know of no one, save a few AAU teams, perhaps, who appreciate the way we call the game these days. I don't know how old you are, but that contact you speak of didn't exist thirty years ago when I played, because officials didn't allow it. We've had this slow creep over the years. The Federation is pointing out that inconsequential contact (such as exists in your two play-situation examples) is different than incidental contact by their definition. Whether contact is incidental doesn't turn of whether there is advantage/disadvantage, even if officials were capable of discerning it--talk about arrogance, eh? For example, how do we know the coach wouldn't prefer the foul to an easy bucket? Maybe his strategy involves getting into the bonus as quickly as possible. We can't know. Incidental must be thought of in context with 10-6. Apply 10-6-2 to your two play situations, for instance, and try to argue incidental: "contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul". The Federation is telling us that we have "gone off the reservation", that determining whether contact is incidental does not mean applying a advantage/disadvantage filter to 10-6. Think of the mayhem that could eventually lead to (some say we're already there). Literally, "incidental" is defined as that which occurs by chance or without intention, which is exactly how I would answer your two play-situations. If it wasn't by chance or without intention, 10-6, otherwise, we end up where we are, POI #1.
It's that slippery slope thing. You know the Federation's argument. I won't restate it any more than I already have. What I, personally, think the whole contact thing boils down to is a decision on the part of parents, ADs, and state associations as to whether they want to follow NFHS rules, or not. They don't have to. In the meantime, as certified officials wearing patches, I think we have to stick with exactly what is prescribed, rather than to relatively recent convention.
Agree with you on the 99% thing--I was speaking in the general sense of "intentional" at the time, which indirectly fed into what I just said above about incidental, I think--can't recall, now.
|
