Help

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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."

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

[tref]

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by tref

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."

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!"

[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.

[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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Let me ask you, is the sky blue?

Not here in Oregon. OK - sometimes.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Why not just say it how you see it, and be fine if not everyone agrees?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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....

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Don't we have to qualify and/or supplement these a bit with 10-3-4?

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What needs to be qualified? What is incorrect about the statement? Billy pulled that particular statement from a "Commonly Misunderstood Rules" piece that he keeps.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

In the first passage of Billy's that I quoted, wouldn't touching to gain an advantage be an exception under 10-3-4a?

In the second, wouldn't less significant contact than Billy describes need to be added if it caused the ring to vibrate (including when try in flight or ball touching backboard) under 10-3-4b?

This post by randall says absolutely nothing.

Here are the rules he cites:

Originally Posted by NFHS 10-3-4 Player Technical

...Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage
b. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try to tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

JR the NFHS rule exam has some questionable wording and that wording causes me (grunewar) to miss questions every yr. Nothing more, nothing less.

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

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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?

Originally Posted by mbyron

Because words have meanings.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

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.