Originally Posted by RandyBrown (Post 748383)

As in our other, now infamous, thread exchange, I’m merely trying to give voice to the language in the books, so if you choose to respond, try to check whatever unwritten intent you may feel applies, and stick with the text and context of the language, as written. As you know by now, I try to adhere as closely as practicable to the language of the books, so if it isn’t within their text or context, it holds no persuasive value for me.

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 748388)

Someday a light will go on for you and years later, you'll laugh back at the time where you just "didn't get it." Till then, I'll just add you to my ignore list. I can't read your novels without getting a headache and I find little value in them, to boot.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 748384)

Can someone sum up what RandyBrown is arguing this time? How did a simple thread with a simple question and answer grow to...this? :confused:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 748394)

Because people keep trying to argue with this clown instead of just giving him an answer and then telling him that's what it is and if he doesn't believe it, piss off. You can't argue with someone who doesn't understand what you're telling him.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 748406)

I mean we (the forum) have had our fair share of arguments and back and forths...but I would figure if someone had that much to type on the subject then there must be something of substance in the post...or maybe not. :confused: I mean there's something to be said about getting to the point and being succinct. For all I know, the very answers to life's mysteries could be contained in those novels but I sure ain't gonna be reading it.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 748406)

I mean we (the forum) have had our fair share of arguments and back and forths...but I would figure if someone had that much to type on the subject then there must be something of substance in the post...or maybe not. :confused: I mean there's something to be said about getting to the point and being succinct. For all I know, the very answers to life's mysteries could be contained in those novels but I sure ain't gonna be reading it.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown (Post 748612)

...So, what do you think of POE #1? Where are they coming from, and who is behind it--and why? What are we doing wrong, and what do we need to change, specifically? Who among us are they talking to--obviously, to generate their reaction, it must be fairly pervasive, no?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 748394)

You can't argue with someone who doesn't understand what you're telling him.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown (Post 748383)

Personally, I don’t glean the clear, sweeping mandate that you do from Article 3. The primary definition of incidental contact, preceding any Articles, requires two things: 1) that the contact is permitted, AND 2) that it not be a foul. I think we both agree that the “permitted” part is what the subsequent Articles are trying to delineate, in addition to outlying passages such as 4-19-1’s subnote. I think Article 1 can be summarized as describing contact that is essentially unavoidable under the circumstances of competitive play. If we drop the clause set out by commas in Article 2, we are left with, “Contact should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.” If we do a little parsing, the drafters’ use of grammar indicates that they are, again, referring to the type of contact previously mentioned--what I summarize as essentially unavoidable contact under the circumstances of competitive play. Then, Article 3 begins with “Similarly,” indicating the same thing, a reference to the type of contact previously mentioned. So, contextually, Articles 2 and 3 are referring to contact that is BOTH essentially unavoidable under the circumstances of competitive play (the “permitted” part of the primary definition of IC), AND also not a foul. They use the word "and" to combine those two.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 748924)

As I have no intention of engaging in hermeneutics.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown (Post 739296)

First off, disposal is covered in 4-5-7, 4-42-3, and maybe elsewhere. If you cannot find an answer to a rules question in the book, yourself, I encourage you to ask others for a book citation. Just as you said has been your experience on this one, you are going to get a variety of answers (meaning a number of incorrect ones) if you simply ask others what the rule is, rather than asking them which rule(s), specifically, govern in the situation you are asking about. Our collective reliance on others for the rules, rather than on the book, perpetuates our ignorance--see this year's Point of Emphasis #1, page 66 (2010-2011). Once you find the governing rule(s) in the book, then you can ask others for their interpretation of those specific rules in relation to game situations you have questions about, discuss it with them, and formulate your own interpretation--which may change over time as you gain experience.

Regarding your initial question, I find it unlikely that the pushing you are referring to BEGINS after the goal, 5-1-1. Is it possible you are catching the tail-end of the contact, and it actually began prior to the goal? Consider, a goal isn't scored until the ball is through the net (the net is part of the basket, 1-10 and 6-1, and 5-1-1 says the ball must pass THROUGH the basket (or remain in) in order to be a goal).

If the contact truly is beginning after the goal, that is, at minimum, a common player technical foul, 10-3-7, and possibly a flagrant player technical foul, 10-3-8. You have to decide if the push was the result of the offender simply being unaware that a goal had just been scored, in which case you could ignore it (but that is ignoring a foul, unless you deem it incidental contact), or you might loudly verbalize a warning and keep an eye on that player, or you might blow your whistle and simply warn (your primary responsibility IS safety, afterall), or you might decide that the ball was available and at the disposal of the offended player's team, that your five-second count had commenced and was currently at zero, and call a personal foul, as you have been doing. Let's face it, professionals don't ignore fouls. A foul is a foul. We don't make the rules, experts do. We simply enforce them, and in so doing, ensure the integrity of the game.

In your mind, imagine various reasons or causes a player might commit such a foul, decide in each case what your call should be, and then try to apply those principles to what you see on the court--learning all the time, of course.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 739495)

Yup, and that's exactly what I did. I did interpret Randy saying it was a common technical foul to mean that it was a "run-of-the-mill technical foul". And that means that Randy's interpretation was completely wrong by rule, as I was pointing out.

It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul" by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be intentional or flagrant in nature, NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".

Hell, Scrappy, you know that.

I really don't care what Randy was trying to say. I do care that what he did say was completely wrong.