Help

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

...blah blah blah LOOK AT MY BIG BRAIN...

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

...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.....

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.

[BillyMac]

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

[Adam]

tref could delete it if he so desires.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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....

[Mark Padgett]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

He thinks he gets paid by the word.

We get paid for this?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We get paid for this?

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

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We get paid for this?

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