Help

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

[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.

[RandyBrown]

What caliber does it take to kill this thing?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

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.

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?

That was the purpose and intent of the rule under both NFHS and NCAA rules.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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."

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?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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