Help

[rockyroad]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

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."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

It's kind of like the guy who tells you he knows the rules because he's "played the game all his life."

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.

[Welpe]

This message is hidden because RandyBrown is on your ignore list.

Much better.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH I'M IN LOVE WITH MY BRAIN

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.

[APG]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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.

[RandyBrown]

Sorry--I thought a summary was in order.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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."

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.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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