Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved." I'm curious: What do you think they are talking about in POE #1?

Okay, I promised to address this, so here goes.

Incidental doesn't mean what I say it does, it means what 4-27 says it does. In particular, with regard to this discussion, I'm thinking of 4-27-3.

Originally Posted by Rule 4-27-3

Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

Now, 10-6-2:

Originally Posted by Rule 10-6-2

A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand....

This, along with every other article in 10-6 has to be read in light of 4-27-3. Failing to do so is going to lead you to call about three times as many fouls as you should

As for the POE of which you seem to think I'm in violation. Note it specifically talks about enforcing the rules "as written." You can't ignore 4-27-3 and hope to enforce 10-6-2 "as written."

Back to our hypthetical, what movements is A1 hindered from if he's driving by his defender, even if he gets slapped on the arm on his way by?

[RandyBrown]

Snaq: I agree that it all has to be considered together. It has sounded to me like you weigh Article 3 more heavily than the Federation intends, as expressed in POE #1. Maybe I do, as well, who knows. I have no doubt that you are significantly better than I at judging hinderance. I suspect that it may be easier to judge at the level of play you officate, as well. What bugs me, personally, is when I judge something incidental that I subsequently decide wasn't incidental. That means I passed on a foul, because of my own poor judgment. At this point, the only way I know to minimize that is to tighten up on calls similar to your example until I don't notice it happening. I try to judge for the level of play, right down to the individual match-up. That's about as good an answer as I can give you.

More generally, I buy in to POE #1. They believe we are judging too much contact as incidental. I watch varsity officials doing 3A and 4A games in my area, and I understand what the Federation is talking about. Our board has received complaints from ADs (coaches and parents) about rough play. The Federation talks about "as written," but then leaves the language of Article 3 intact. You could argue they contradict themselves. The thrust of their argument is clear, however. They believe the current level of contact judged incidental is too high. They argue that we encourage illegal contact in so doing, which leads to an excessive level of rough play. You have seemed to me to show no sensitivity to their concerns, but that may be because you are just that good, and their concerns really do not apply to you. How do you answer their concerns, for yourself? Do they apply to you, or not? Do you have any doubts?

[Nevadaref]

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Anything palatable?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Is that popcorn or beer--or both?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

First, that wasn't the context. The context of that particular phrase was WRT the POI rule. The purpose and intent of all the rules is to prevent unfair advantage; and holding the arrow or removing the ability to run the endline constitute an advantage for one team when none is intended.

You’ll have to speak for yourself, here. I was never talking about advantage/disadvantage in the context POI. Where he responds to me, you and I were discussing legal/illegal contact (see below).

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Incidental doesn't mean what I say it does, it means what 4-27 says it does. In particular, with regard to this discussion, I'm thinking of 4-27-3.

Now, 10-6-2:

This, along with every other article in 10-6 has to be read in light of 4-27-3. Failing to do so is going to lead you to call about three times as many fouls as you should

As for the POE of which you seem to think I'm in violation. Note it specifically talks about enforcing the rules "as written." You can't ignore 4-27-3 and hope to enforce 10-6-2 "as written."

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.

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.

For the “not a foul” part, we have to look elsewhere in the book for what type of contact constitutes a foul, so, Rule 10. This is where I think you beg the question. You use the Definition of Incidental Contact, which clearly states that it only applies to contact that is NOT a foul, to help you decide what a foul is. In the field of Logic, that is referred to as a circular argument, and is invalid, of course. Fouls are established in Rule 10, not in the Definition of Incidental Contact. Notice that 6-11 of Rule 10 references certain Rule 4 Definitions for assistance in establishing what a foul is, but nowhere does it reference that of Incidental Contact, further indicating to me that the drafters do not want 4-27 qualifying what is and what is not a foul (the first indication being that 4-27 starts out by excluding from the definition of “incidental contact” anything that is elsewhere defined as a foul).

So, textually and contextually, if the books somewhere say particular contact is a foul, then it's a foul. 4-27 only qualifies Rule 10 if the contact was unavoidable under the circumstances AND occurred with opponents in equally favorable positions without hindrance to normal offensive or defensive movement. Slapping a dribbler as he passes in an attempt to dislodge the ball is not only poor defense, it is definitely not unavoidable, and therefore outside the scope of incidental contact AS EXPRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES. This is where I agree with coaches (the better ones, in my opinion) and others in the game who say a foul is a foul, and why I/we think it is far from meaningless.

You suggested my view was extreme, and asked whether I call games according to the letter of the books: of course I don't. That's just not where the game is right now, hence the efforts of NFHS to turn us back. I wish we all did, however, and I think that is what parents, coaches, and ADs are expressing via NFHS through POE #1. Not only do I find the game boring as we presently call it, but it is tedious to have to constantly be trying to determine advantage/disadvantage with respect to contact. As you pointed out, the disagreement among us in that judgment is so vast, we might as well admit it's arbitrary. It would be better and far more consistent to judge avoidable/unavoidable, and let the players adjust--what I believe the Federation is arguing for.

I already know your interpretation/philosophy, so no need to restate it. If you don’t have specific language from the books that you think counters the language and context I am presenting, let’s just leave it there, and see if someone else can provide something fresh. This gets at what I was trying to say regarding philosophy. It has nothing to do with whether I can learn from others in my local association, or elsewhere—of course I can. I was saying that I haven’t found a need for extra-textual philosophies in order to interpret the books. Those in my local association who are willing to stay within the four corners of the books I find great value in.

[APG]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Not get it? RecLeague Randy with his vast one and a half year's experience of doing competitive Grade 6 girls games doesn't get it? YGTBKM.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

As I have no intention of engaging in rule-book hermeneutics, I'm going to let you have the last word on this. You've demonstrated that you're not willing to learn, and for an 18 month official, that's not a good thing. I'm going to wash my hands of this, double the size of my ignore list, and drop it. I've simply put too much time into trying to help someone who doesn't want help.



Maybe you can find the original Greek manuscript and go from there.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As I have no intention of engaging in hermeneutics.

Darn good thing too, because I think that that's illegal in most states. If it's not illegal in your state, then definitely don't cross a state line while engaging in such activity.

[RandyBrown]

The following is in the NFHS Rulebook on page 7:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

I stand corrected--strictly speaking. The reference above is in a different context. Snaq and I were talking about advantage/disadvantage as a means of judging whether live-ball contact that otherwise meets the threashold of foul should be ignored as incidental. My point was that they could insert its application into the actual rules at any time, but continually choose not to. Its use in the "Intent and Purpose" is quite different.

The following is not in the NFHS Rulebook, but is regarded by most experienced officials as being just as important as anything in the rulebook:

THE TOWER PHILOSOPHY

Personally, I think the books are self-sufficient. I really question whether there is room for "philosophy." The books cover it all amazingly well. I appreciate you sharing it, but I feel more than capable of figuring it out for myself--they did, so will I. If you don't mind, I would like to hear your opinion on POE #1, and how you think it relates to what you quoted.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The Federation argues that players would soon adjust to whatever we call. I agree, do you? As I have mentioned elsewhere, the volume of contact you speak of was not present in the game thirty and forty years ago, because officials did not tolerate it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Snaq and I were talking about advantage/disadvantage as a means of judging whether live-ball contact that otherwise meets the threashold of foul should be ignored as incidental. My point was that they could insert its application into the actual rules at any time, but continually choose not to. Its use in the "Intent and Purpose" is quite different.

First, that wasn't the context. The context of that particular phrase was WRT the POI rule. The purpose and intent of all the rules is to prevent unfair advantage; and holding the arrow or removing the ability to run the endline constitute an advantage for one team when none is intended.

Second, the rules for contact are clear. I'm not placing more emphasis on 4-27-3 than the rule makers intended. The problem is, by its very nature, it's subjective and there's no way to avoid it. What I see as an advantage (or "hinderance") is viewed as others as incidental; and the opposite is true sometimes as well. There's a string in the NCAA thread, with a video, where I see incidental contact on play some would (and in fact the NCAA official on the ball did) rule a foul.

That's what I meant when I said the phrase "a foul is a foul" is meaningless.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Personally, I think the books are self-sufficient.

Good luck in your career, because you obviously don't feel you need instruction from officials in your area working games to which you strive.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

The Federation argues that players would soon adjust to whatever we call. I agree, do you? As I have mentioned elsewhere, the volume of contact you speak of was not present in the game thirty and forty years ago, because officials did not tolerate it.

This is the very play we've talked about. Rule 4-27-3 is clear, it's not a foul if the offense isn't hindered. Yeah, they'll adjust, but you'll be calling the game at the junior high level for your entire career if you don't adjust and start implementing 4-27-3.

Let me ask you again, exactly how do you differentiate between a slap that is incidental or a slap that isn't? Do you use 10-6-2 to call a foul every time someone touches an opponent with his hand? What about 10-6-6? Do you call a foul everytime a defender "contacts" his opponent from behind?

10-6-7: Are you going to call the dribbler for a foul when he tries to go between defenders and one of them gets a steal while neither was displaced?

10-6-9: Dribbler is approaching his defender and stops, making very slight contact with the defender's chest. You calling a foul?