Help

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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?

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

You appear to be a bit more flexible than Jurassic.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

You appear to be a bit more flexible than Jurassic.

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

For the most part, all things being equal, we call violations as we see them.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I don't know if I'm more flexible...I agree with JR's assessment of this play fully.

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

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

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.

[Raymond]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

...

JR, this clown IS NOT an official:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

...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. ...

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.