You must have read this month's REFEREE. ;)

If not, it has a discussion about how to receive constructive criticism and what to do if you disagree. Repetitive, "Yabuts" ain't it if you want to get ahead!

It's a truism, and thus meaningless for actual discussion. It's also coachspeak, and thus a glaring sign that the speaker is not an official.

What does this even mean? A foul is always a foul because we've deemed said contact to be illegal. All contact however isn't a foul and that judgement is what separates officials. JR's position that a rule shouldn't be waived doesn't necessarily contradict with the position that a foul is a foul and that all contact isn't illegal.

I'd hate to have to sit through an association meeting or rules clinic with this joker. :eek:

Would love to see him in a camp setting trying to show off how much more intelligent he is than the supervisor or clinicians....LOL

Further strengthens my stance that this clown is only here b/c he disagreed with the intrepretation of a ruling in a game his team lost.

Why are you people responding to this dickhead again?

Unbelievable.....:rolleyes:

Also known as the career Jr High official.

They're practicing for the debate team.

Or, as we like to call him, "Randy."

Like I said before, this guy is dangerous...to the game, to his Association, to newer officials, etc. He thinks that by philosophizing and waxing poetic on the rules he is showing us all how much he knows, but is actually proving the old saying that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I believe we've just coined a new term. Baseball has "Smitty" courtesy of Carl Childress and now Snaques has given us "Randy".

1. I could go with that. "I worked with Randy last night. Just for kicks, I let him do the pregame captains' meeting."

2. Shut up.

It's kind of like the guy who tells you he knows the rules because he's "played the game all his life." When a guy tells me that I reply, "Really? All your life? I bet when you were a baby you double dribbled a lot."

Another reply to the guy who thinks he knows the rules because he's played a lot (but never officiated) is, "Just because you've been a passenger in an airplane many times doesn't mean you're qualified to be the pilot."

I prefer my grandfather's common response:


smile and nod.

He did it when he couldn't hear you, but it works for me with morons, too.

Agreed, APG, but this is an online forum. I have heard there are some in my association who don't tolerate being challenged due to the fact they have more years under their belts than others (many of whom retired last year as the Board has come to be dominated by a younger generation), but all of the Pool 1 guys I have talked to are open-minded. One, in particular, is in his fourth decade (used to be a D1 official, invited to an NBA camp). He has no problem being challenged. None of them have taken my questioning as a personal affront, that I know of, or become frustrated. They can make the important distinction between crew consistency on the court, and a robust discussion of the rules around a table. An online forum is a perfect venue for such discussions. My point with the Debate analogy is that it isn't just for argument's sake. There are derivative benefits from the method, itself.

I noticed you didn't distinguish it from Jurassic's position--which, on its face, is POE #1, it seems to me.

The meaning is somewhat subtle. Snaq's point applies to what you have expressed, here. The deeper meaning of coaches and others is that a foul IS NOT a foul because we've deemed said contact to be illegal; rather, it is a foul because Rule 10 says it's a foul. They are focusing on the fact that the definition of Incidental Contact specifies that IC applies only to contact that is not defined in Rule 10, as well as the fact that Rule 10 prescribes no advantage/disadvantage filter to itself. So, similar to POE #1, it means make the players adapt to the rules, and not vice versa.

Not so much, Mark. That would apply before reading the rules, but not after. I base what I say on passages from the Books. I have done that, throughout. For some reason, it's like water on hot oil for some of you. Some of you act as though only time and experience can unlock the true meaning of the language of the Books. Time and experience have their value, but POE #1 is saying that an understanding of advantage/disadvantage, which comes from playing the game, and to a lesser extent, from officiating it over time, is not required to enforce the rules as written. In other words, advantage/disadvantage is not a filter for judging Rule 10. That removes a lot of our discretion, which strips us of "power", in a sense, but that is what they are saying, like it or not.