You have to call the basket interference since the exception only applies to a hand legally in contact with the ball. JR is correct in his interpretation.

Don't be so pessimistic. :) The exception you are referencing is in the definition of BI, right? I hadn't even considered it. I was talking about the injury prevention aspect, and how dunkers are commonly allowed to get away with what seems to be a loose enforcement of 10-3-3 in deference to the mere chance that the grasping may be prophylactic. Given the latitude they are allowed, my question came down to who strictly enforces 10-3-3 in situations with the off-hand getting there a bit early, with no advantage gained because of it.

I agree with him--that appears to be the rule as written. It just seems a little harsh to nail A1 for interference on his own dunk if we don't think he benfitted from the grasp.

It might help if you understood the basics. That's why I cited R4-6-1. if a player is grasping the basket while dunking the basket, that player touched a part of the basket while the ball was on or within the basket. No matter whether the basket grasp was legal or not, the dunk can NEVER count by rule.

It's a comprehension problem on your part, Randy. It's not the rule. The rule is straightforward.

I suppose, but you could apply that line of thinking to a host of violations.

A1 is throwing the ball inbounds after a made free throw...no backcourt pressure. A1 steps over the line and a portion of his toe is inbound. We still whistle the throw-in violation even though no real advantage was gained. Sometimes, them's the breaks.

I agree with you both regarding the rules as written, for Pete's sake! Your line violation may not be perfectly on point--you have to draw a line somewhere, and enforce it. I was hoping to provoke some discussion surrounding advantage/disadvantage, and intent of the rules as they regard a guy interfering with his own dunk that he is in control of the entire time. I guess you two, at least, are quite confident that the intent of the rule applies to him. I'm fine with that--just curious if there was dissention.

You can't waive a freaking rule EVER!!!!!

We, not "I', apply R10-3-3 as it's written and as per the direction we've been given by case plays, POE's etc.

The exception under 4-6-1 applies to a dunk attempt only. That exception states that after dunking, you can legally touch the ring. The common application of that exception by most experienced officials is that they will also include a legal quick grasp of the ring following a dunk under the "touch" part of the exception as long as the dunker immediately lets go. That was the purpose and intent of the rule under both NFHS and NCAA rules.

What we won't allow is that quick grasp of the ring after a dunk to develop into holding onto the ring with no one under you, swinging, pull-ups, etc. That's the purpose and intent of R10-3-3, and that's why that rule was enacted.

As I said earlier, there are very few violations that advantage/disadvantage is applied to...this ain't one of em. For the most part, all things being equal, we call violations as we see them.

And that's your whole problem outlined quite nicely right there. You want to discuss something that you absolutely nothing about.

There is no advantage/disadvantage involved. You call the freaking rule the way it was written and the way the rulesmakers want it called. And you learn the rules by asking questions and then accepting the damn answers. Especially when the damn answers are backed up by rules citations. It's not our fault that you don't understand those rules citations; it's your's! You'll never learn a damn thing until you realize that.

You may be willing to admit, Jurassic, when judging advantage/disadvantage, the rules get a little murky in practice, depending on which officials are on the court. The saying, "Adjust to the officials" didn't come out of nowhere. I don't want to debate that, though. A minor point regarding the grasp: wouldn't you rather say that the legal quick grab gets license from 10-3-3 rather than 4-6-1?

You appear to be a bit more flexible than Jurassic.

I'll say it one last time: I agree with you on the rules as written. The advantage/disadvantage judgment is subjective--yours is as valid as another's. This discussion, which I instigated, has nothing to do with me accepting answers. It was instigated by me as food for thought for all--not as a, "Hey, Jurassic, how do you want me to handle this one?" Got it? Yours is not the only voice I want to hear, here.

I don't know if I'm more flexible...I agree with JR's assessment of this play fully. I'm actually not sure what you're hung up on as far as grasping or A/D or intent. I've never heard anyone have an issue with the rule as written. Everyone knows what kind of "grasp" we're talking about on a dunk attempt that needs to be called a T. If you want to say we're reading into the "intent of the rules" then so be it.

If you don't believe us, go ask your assignor/rules interpreter how you should handle this play. Go watch the best officials in your association work and when you get the chance to talk to them, ask them how they would handle the play. I'm 99 percent sure, they would handle this play the exact same way.

JR doesn't use language like, "for the most part, all things being equal".

I'm not hung up on anything. As I said, just curious whether there was a variety of opinion on the issue. I don't know why you two are having a problem accepting that, but let's not argue about it any longer. This has gone way beyond the scope of what I started.

Fair enough I guess...wouldn't you say that the near universal opinion you've received on this play should satisfy your curiosity as to whether there are any dissenting opinions? :confused:

Randy, when it comes to you, all I'm willing to admit is that you're clueless second-year official that doesn't know even the basics when it comes to the rules and their application. The only thing that is murky is your comprehension of what's being discussed.

It's a a waste of time debating anything with you. My responses were directed at others that might be reading and maybe were a little unsure of how to properly call the situation being discussed.

You know, if some of the knowledgable people that posted in this thread trying to educate you told me that I was full of sh!t, I'd probably head for a mirror to check the brown line on my forehead to see if I was down a quart. You? It would be "No, I'm right and y'all are full of it."

1. Yes, different officials are better at judging advantage when it comes to fouls; just as different officials are better at judging whether a travel has actually occurred. Some officials have a more accurate 5 second count than others, too. So?

2. No, there's no "legal" quick grab by rule. By practice, it's another story. This is a case where strict adherence to the rule will likely ensure you continue working games where you won't have to worry about it. But anything more than a quick grab and release, quick enough that it's a bit difficult to tell if he actually "grabbed" the rim or continued his follow through by pushing it down a bit without grabbing it, and it needs to be called.

3. This is largely philosophy stuff, which as you've stated is still a bit outside your interest. It's very similar to the way 3 seconds is typically called vs the way the rule is written.

Players don't grasp the rim DURING the dunk, they grasp the rim after the ball has left their hand(s). This clown is making an argument on something that never happens.

He is saying on a normal dunk attempt players grab the rim while still holding the ball. Why oh why are you entertaining this guy who not only cannot officiate, but now seems like he never even played the game?

He's gone from someone who played for 20 years then started officiating to now someone who observed the game for years with no mention of officiating.

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.

Randy, I've made a big mistake trying to explain some things to you. I won't make the same mistake again. You simply just don't want to learn. You already know everything there is to know from your vast experience of watching and playing basketball.

Hopefully, the other esteemed members on this site will come to the same conclusion...and we can all just collectively ignore you in the future.

Have a great rec-league career. :) You're right where you belong and you sureashell ain't ever going anywhere else.

Ta-ta.

I may not be esteemed, but I've come to the same conclusion. And I apologize for the bandwidth I've wasted in the futile effort to help a baby official.

Oh, you're esteemed, all right. And never stop trying to help the baby officials either. But as soon as anyone like Randy shows that they absolutely refuse to even try to learn the basics, we might as well flush 'em. :) All we're doing is wasting our time and getting frustrated doing so.

Not "esteemed" but sometimes...it's it's just fun to "go along with it" even when you know it probably won't go anywhere. :D What happened to the new, kinder JR? ;)

That went down the crapper with Randy.

I honestly did try to explain some things to him. Some very basic things too. He didn't want to learn; he wanted to show us how smart he was instead. Unfortunately for him, he did just that.

Our avocation doesn't need the Randys of the world. We have enough problems now without people like him adding to 'em.

I kid I kid...

I can certainly see how this is frustrating...to me, it's just like the "yeah but" official who doesn't take advice from officials that have been doing this a lot longer then they have....especially on a rule that is crystal clear. I can't for the mind of me understand how someone in their second year of officiating can try and debate this much on matters such as philosophy, mechanics, and rules. Thirty years of playing rec ball and watching basketball just doesn't cut it. It literally took me three and half years of being here before I started feeling confident in helping others with rules, philosophy, etc, and even then, I'm real careful in what I type.

My only complaint is that your threshold is a little too high. :)

I think some of us have a lower cut-off level than others when it comes to dealing with the "yeah, but" guys like Randy. I admire both Snaqs and JR's attempts to work with the guy. I never even bothered to get involved with these discussions because I was through with the guy after reading his first three posts...maybe Jeff or BITS can get through to the guy, but I seriously doubt even they can.

It aint for everybody...

Breathing, that is.

If the frustrated among you would relax your attitudes, rid yourselves of the need to indoctrinate others, you would avoid all of that frustation. What's with the need to have others agree with you--"my way or the highway"? Why not just say it how you see it, and be fine if not everyone agrees?

Because words have meanings.

That, and it's not about getting someone to agree with us in some sort of "my way or the highway" crap. Again, the mantra of the yabut guy.
It's about explaining the basics of what makes a competent official above the middle school or rec league level.

If he wants to just guess at what contact is a foul or not, fine. If he wants to move up, then it might better serve him to actually figure out the logic and reasoning behind the decisions.

Or he can keep on keeping on.

I should have known when he offered the fan/coach/player catechism, "a foul is a foul."

Let me ask you, is the sky blue? Is water wet? Does man need oxygen to survive? Feel like everyone has been trying to indoctrinate me with the same answers.

Again, you're a second year official and you're arguing with a collection of those that have many many times the experience and knowledge of you? Thirty years of playing rec ball and watching basketball doesn't make you an expert on matters of officiating. If that were true, than all ex-NBA players would be NBA officials when the matter of the fact is there's only a handful.

Worked with a varsity assistant coach a while back. Since he was blowing my line & calling across the paint, I asked:
1. If he has a book.
2. If he planned on attending a camp or taking the test.

He said he played ball all his life plus he coaches, so "he's good to go." :rolleyes:

And the worst part is, now he gets to add, "I ref too," when acting like an idiot during the game.

I hope I'm around when he does...

Got to love it...

Now I'm not going to act like knowing the game can't help one be a better official then say...someone who has no idea about the game. There's a reason I would never officiate volleyball (insert joke here), because I have no idea what a lift looks like. As long as you don't catch the ball, I'd be play on to me...and I'd be wrong probably 80 percent of the time.

But on the other hand, I'm also not going to claim indoctrination when nearly everyone has told me something is an absolute, and I don't agree with it.

"Yeah, but!"

As someone wiser than me once said: Sometimes you just have to referee.

JR, this clown IS NOT an official:

He is a Mensa egghead somehow affiliated with a HS basketball program. His team lost some game involving a controversial ruling by the officials and now he wants to write a thesis parsing every single word of the rule book to show those particular officials did not interpret the rules correctly.

He is a liar. He originally stated he played for 20 years and now has officiated for the last year and a half. Then later he changed his tune and said he has observed basketball for years and quit making any mention of officiating.

He is a TROLL whose only point is that the NFHS rule book has some questionable wording and that wording caused his team to lose. Nothing more, nothing less.

They were 100% from the FT line, didnt miss any layups & had a turnover-free game, I'm sure.

Not here in Oregon. OK - sometimes. :)

OK...you are an arrogant idiot who will not take the advice of people with years of officiating at levels you can only hope to achieve.

You are, therefore, entirely dangerous to the game and the players involved. You make a mockery of the avocation to which many of us on here have devoted years of our time.

Well, he did ask....

Catching up since I have my hands on NFHS rule & case books now.

Randall, as usual, did not ask a legitimate question here. Just threw out a rule number in a vague manner. I guarantee if I read through this entire thread he never once explains what he meant by this question.

This post by randall says absolutely nothing.

Here are the rules he cites:

randall doesn't grasped these rules because he never officiated in his life and doesn't understand the concept of judgement. He doesn't understand that officials have to judge advantage and intent. He thinks judgement should be hard coded somewhere in the rule book.

He is upset because when he attends his HS games different officials have differing judgement on the same or similar plays and there are no concrete words in the rule book spelling out how judgement should be determined from official to official.


You'll have to excuse my little mini-rant but I was out of town the last 2 weeks on business and couldn't really address this clown like I wanted to.

Here's how this applies to me......
 

and now I return you back to our off-season banter.

APG: Maybe you are familiar with high school or college Policy Debate (or Public Forum) competitions. A new, real-world mock resolution is chosen every year. Teams go head-to-head with one another--half the time affirming the resolution, the other half negating it--round after round, tournament after tournament. As the year(s) progress(es), one powerful learning achievement for many is learning to avoid emotional attachment to particular points of view, so that you can accept/adopt and adapt to new points of view submitted by others, without frustration. Both sides enter each round as though they posses full conviction in their respective positions, which serves to maximize what each learns from the other, in the end. That's my approach, here. Many of you have a different attitude, and then make the mistake of ascribing to me that same attitude. I more just kind of shake the tree to see what falls out, you know?

So, you, mbyron, must become frustrated whenever another disagrees with you about the meaning of words? That's a lot of potential frustration for you, especially considering the Federation felt it necessary to crack down on officials, collectively, for what the Federation views as substantial misinterpretation of the rules as written.

Snaq, you, yourself, have pointed out before how competent officials, when shown the same video clip, disagree about rules application regarding it.

Anything else is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? "Some fouls are fouls"? "A foul is sometimes a foul"? How would you distinguish between "A foul is a foul," and Jurassic's position that a rule should NEVER be waived?

Don't you think that is kind of the point of POE #1, to rely on the text of the books rather than on other officials? Isn't it the experienced officials, and their application of the rules what caused POE #1? I doubt the Federation would dedicate a POE to Rec officials.

That may work in the formal debate contest/competition, but in the officiating world being the "yabut" guy won't help your progression at all. You'll just be seen as the guy who isn't open to being helped and being argumentative for argument's sake.

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.

Much better.

Another "Gone with the Wind" tome without a single instance of a play being described/discussed and without a single rules citation.

He may be a genius scholastically but he lacks a single ounce of common sense when it comes to basketball officiating.

The reason no one wants to debate rules with him in his association is because he never discusses anything basketball related. All he does is play a game of "got you" with the words in the rule book. He's arrogant and narcisistic. He wants nothing to do with discussing basketball plays and trying to get better as an official.

You're right, this is an online forum, but if you're arguing basic rules and philosphy on here, then I can't really imagine how you wouldn't be that guy version "yabut." There's no problem with being open to new ideas and such, but I wouldn't consider questioning an easy and basic rule (such as what was discussed in this thread) to being open.

To your second point, I have no idea what you tried to say in reference to POE #1. I will say talking to officials at all levels of work, including some at D-I on both sides, have clearly gone against everything you've said. Whose line of thinking will I follow? A second year official or someone who has made it to levels higher than you and me? You may think reading the rule book makes you proficient as an official, but there is absolutely no substitue for time and experience. Again, thirty years of playing recreational basketball, watching the sport, and two years of officiating does not make you even close to being proficient as an official.

There's a religious term for his kind of debate, "proof texting." I've had my share of religious debates with his sort over the years, and it's just as annoying and fruitless in that arena as well.

Sorry--I thought a summary was in order. :)

Imagine litigation. Although attorneys present arguments on behalf of clients, they don’t necessarily believe in the merits of what they are arguing--and don’t need to. All that is needed for a healthy process is for them to behave as though they do. The judge/jury does the weighing and amalgamating.

I had to go back through the thread and look for where I questioned an easy and basic rule. I don’t see it, depending on what you mean by “questioned”, I guess. Multiple rules were discussed. Which are you referring to?

Maybe a summary helps: At the time, I thought my post #23 was the end of my contribution to this thread. Things got muddled after that. I asked for examples of 10-3-4a infractions. Snaq mixed 10-3-3 into his response, and Tref raised a dunk situation that included a ring grasp with the off-hand without specifying whether the grasp aided the goal, or was for injury prevention, or what. For me, it raised memories of seeing guys who don’t make it quite high enough to make a routine two-handed dunk, resulting in a loss of two-handed control as they try to put it through, either because the ball is on the tips of their fingers when their wrists/forearms contact the rim, or the rim catches the ball momentarily on their downward thrust, or what have you, followed by one hand coming off the ball and to the rim with a grasp (because a two-handed grasp is their common finish to their two-handed dunk) as the other hand completes pushing the ball through and also grasps. I then asked tref whether he would consider that legal, meaning only in terms of 10-3-3, because I wasn't interested in the BI aspect at that point, only the T aspect since grasping is so routinely allowed during a dunk under the guise of preventing player injury. Tref answered affirmatively, which, to me, indicated that his play situation involved a grasp by the off-hand for injury prevention (and also indicated to me that he wasn’t introducing BI into my narrower 10-3-3 and 4 discussion, either). Others chose to ignore my topic at that point, and focus on the BI aspect of the play, because, strictly speaking, its Exception clause only allows contact while dunking if the hand is in contact with the ball. Once I followed them in that direction, I wondered whether some might argue that the intent of 4-6-1 and 2’s Exception clause would allow for the separated off-hand’s grasp, because if the off-hand’s contact is tantamount to a follow-through of the dunking motion, meaning no advantage is gained, would the Rule’s drafters have cared? I don't know. I agreed that the language of the Rule doesn’t allow the off-hand contact, but if some think that such no-advantage-gained type contact with the ring is antithetical to the intent of the BI rule under the Exception clause (Why rob a guy of a dunk when there is no assist by his “interference”, they might ask), then the legality of the grasp turns back to a 10-3-3 question of injury prevention. Again, this element occurs only for those who believe that the contact/grasp that both I and, apparently, tref were talking about meets the intent of the 4-6-1 and 2 Exemption. Tref indicated that he was in that crowd when he answered my question as to its legality during a dunk in the affirmative. At that point, I wondered how many others agreed with him, and how many agreed with Jurassic. You and Snaq seemed to be a bit in the middle, if I understood correctly.

You've got a number of things in here: 1) The POE #1 comment was for Snaq. 2) I didn't profess anything in this thread, so I don't know what there is to go against, other than my stated agreement with others' characterization of specific Rules. 3) I don't know what you mean by lines of thinking in regards to this thread, but I would hope you would follow only your own. I wouldn't be able to identify a line of thinking of my own in this thread for you to even consider following. I pretty much just asked a bunch of questions. 4) I definitely do not think reading the Rules book has made me proficient--nor has playing, nor has spectating. I'm very many years away from such a point, even with diligence. The thread discussions I have participated in have definitely enriched my understanding of a number of things, inefficient as they have been, but I won't be able to go out and apply them all tomorrow. I'll re-read them from time to time, and I'll supplement them with others' points of view as time progresses.

My sort would be still different, Snaq, as we make a hard distinction between faith and reason. My sort considers "debating" religion folly.

Your sort has more in common with the other sort than you realize.

Mensa egghead proving again he has no interest in discussing officiating nor getting better at it. Just wants to debates words. He must be bored. Maybe no one wants to use him as an official so this is his only way to keep in touch with the avocation.

His only moments of honesty on this forum. He never professes anything in any thread or any discussion, at least not basketball related.

He has no line of thinking and pretty much asks a bunch of dumb-a$$, nonsensical, irrelevant questions.

Notice when we had a great line of discussion surrounding all the plays APG posted during the post-season tournament that randall was nowhere to be found. His is totally incapable analyzing real basketball. He has no concept of play-calling. Despite his high IQ he is obviously frustrated that this is one thing he can't wrap his brain around. He is jealous of those of us who have the compentency to officiate real basketball, who have the ability use the words in the rule book in practical application.

It's the Humane Thing To Do ...
 

This thread is giving me a headache. Can a moderator please put the thread out of it's misery?

tref could delete it if he so desires.

Keep it for history sake...could you imagine if we couldn't go back and read some of Old School's infamous posts? Every now and then, when I need a good life, I still go back to read...that. ;)

I smell a poll....

I got him figured out. He thinks he gets paid by the word. :o

Check's In The Mail ...
 

We get paid for this?

Yeah, Brad sends me a check every month. Don't you get one too?

Yes. And I can see to it that you get yours via direct deposit. Just send me your account number and PIN.