Originally Posted by RandyBrown
(Post 750109)
What caliber does it take to kill this thing? :)
More power to you. Without making a judgment on the efficacy of your approach, in my neck of the woods, if there's a blow-out, ALL concerned (and I do mean EVERYONE) accept and expect us to waive the enforcement of certain rules to mitigate humiliation to the under-performing team's players. We call it "game management." Maybe you feel that falls under the general intent and purpose of the rules, and therefore, as such, is not a waiver of the rules. That would be a mere semantic difference between us, I think.
I assume you are not limiting your comment to that particular Article, that you are claiming all of you do so with respect to every rule, correct? Who is "we", by the way?
I tried getting into this in another thread. You seem to reference past statements of intent as being necessary to understand the current Rules and Case Books. Is that your position? If so, that implies that the current Books are incomplete/insufficient/inadequate, by themselves.
I'm a little confused by this, and I now really want to know who "we" is. Rather than relying on 10-3-3's risk-of-injury exception, you say "most experienced officials" (not all of them) allow a quick grasp under 4-6-1. Of those experienced officials who do this, I would think you would find that a waiver of a rule--specifically, 10-3-3. I can see exempting the grasp under 10-3-3's exception, but exempting it under 4-6-1's exception seems to require a waiver of 10-3-3. I AM DEBATING NOTHING, HERE! This is just an observation--clarify if you desire. It strikes me that many varsity officials allow the dunker to grasp and pull the ring for effect and there is clearly no risk of injury, particularly at the college level. I would have guessed that the intent of 10-3-3 had to do with preventing ring and backboard damage prior to break-away rings rather than expressing a whit whether a dunker grasps the ring, but I don't know.
Jurassic, your "clown" remarks and the rest of your foment have put you in the category of a very silly person, from my perspective--mockery mocks the mocker, you know? I just want to hear your take on things. If you choose to say anything to me, which you continue to do--both to my surprise and with my appreciation--you'll do yourself a favor by losing your desire to persuade. Edification will come from whatever merits I judge your comments to have, not from the merits you proclaim they have.
Not sure. It seems that some here possess a stong desire to dominate discussions--maybe need to. When Jurassic proclaims that things are as he says they are, and that all dissenters are moronic, it might cause some to shy away. You, for instance, use language that strikes me as less strict than what Jurassic professes "we" all ascribe to (I assume he is including you in his "we"). Similarly, Snaq clearly dissents in his point #2, below, where he states that, "there's no 'legal' quick grab by rule", and that it is only allowed in practice because of convention. That is clearly at odds with Jurassic's proclamation that "we" NEVER waive a rule. Jurassic, himself, seems to make exception when he admits that "most" experienced officials do one thing, and the remainder to another.
The more arrogant you are, the more wasteful it is of your time. The greater your need to persuade, the more potentially wasteful it is of your time. The less arrogant you are, the more you would approach these forums with the attitude that you might learn something, change your mind about something, whatever. The latter is the only reason I'm here. I have little use for this forum if you don't change my thinking--reinforcing my thinking being a distant secondary use. My comments in this particular thread haven't even constituted debate--I have professed nothing. The closest I have come is to question whether the intent of 10-3-3 includes the negation of a dunker's goal because the off-hand, to no advantage, grasped the ring just before the other hand drove the ball through. Why would the drafter's have cared, given modern basket technology? My scenario attempts to exclude the concept of BI (conceptually, only--not the rule as written), because I ostensibly eliminate advantage--the score would have occurred without the premature off-hand grasp. According to you, the quick grasp of a would-be dunker whose attempt ricochets out MUST be called for BI, because 4-6-1's exception allows contact with the ring only after the ball is through the ring, no?
I would argue that traveling is a matter of identification, not judgment. There is no judgment involved in count accuracy, either. They are both objective questions, not subjective, like advantage/disadvantage is. I don't know how that affects what you were trying to say--you'll have to elaborate for me if you want more of a response.
I'm interested in philosophy (I have an undergraduate degree in it), just not extra-textual philosophy that is contrived outside the text/context of the Books. I question whether the game requires something that cannot be derived from the Books, themselves. That's a bit of a subtle determination, I realize. If the "philosophy" relies solely on the language of the Books, I have no problem with it.
|
