Who Let The Dogs Out ???

[Jurassic Referee]

As usual, there will be case plays and rules interpretations issued by the FED before next season that should answer all of the questions that we have. Until then, everything is speculation. None of us can give you a definitive answer.

If it is really bothering you though, you do have two alternatives:
1) You can contact Bainsey's IAABO rules interpreter and get his answer to your questions. Then do the polar opposite of what he tells you. That should work.
2) You can sit in a corner with Nevada and chant "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" until the new case plays and rules interps come out.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If it is really bothering you though, you do have two alternatives:
1) You can contact Bainsey's IAABO rules interpreter and get his answer to your questions. Then do the polar opposite of what he tells you. That should work.
2) You can sit in a corner with Nevada and chant "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" until the new case plays and rules interps come out.

It looks like I'm caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As usual, there will be case plays and rules interpretations issued by the FED before next season that should answer all of the questions that we have.

Are we both talking about the same FED? All of our questions? You have got to be kidding me. Have you been drinking Mark Padgett's Kool-Aid?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Have you been drinking Mark Padgett's Kool-Aid?

I'd be glad to sell some of my Kool-Aid to any of you guys. Just email me with your debit card number and PIN. Thanks.

[Rich]

My reaction? Who freaking cares? It's only a game and the NFHS will only figure out how to screw up a rule or two that was never a problem before. And I'll still walk on the court in November and work and it won't matter a bit.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My reaction? Who freaking cares? I'll still walk on the court in November and work and it won't matter a bit.

So let's say that you're working an early season high school varsity game.

Early in the game your partner calls a very rare "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul, as the new rule states. He also reports it as a delay of game team warning.

Later in the game your partner calls a technical foul on the same team for failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout for having water on the playing court (I actually called a warning for this this past season, first one ever) after already charging a team warning for the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul. Opposing team makes both free throws for the technical foul, and later goes on to win the game by one point.

After the game, after consulting his rule book, the losing athletic director, after handing both of you your checks, politely mentions to both you, and your partner, that you guys might have blown the call, because his team only violated one of the delay of game criterion (water on the court) and should not have received a delay of game warning for the intentional foul on the thrower-in because the player did not go over the boundary line. Thus, his team should have received just a warning for the water on the court, and the opposing team should not have shot, and made, the two technical free throws.

He also tells you that he will be calling your assigner the next morning to discuss the call with your assigner, after which he says that he hopes that both of you have a "Happy Holiday", and that he hopes to see you guys again later in the season.

At this point, don't you think that it would have made a difference in how you, and your partner, would have felt about calling that game if you had known if the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul should have also included a team warning as part of the penalty? Wouldn't it have been nice to know that you and your partner nailed the call, or blew the call? Wouldn't it have mattered then?

And then there's always the possibility of a new rule, or a rule change, or a rule clarification, showing up on a preseason rules refresher exam, that, for some associations, counts toward the number, and quality, of assignments that officials get. If your association gives such an exam, then wouldn't it have mattered then?

[Jurassic Referee]

Billy, these early rules handouts always get clarified before we have to walk out on the floor to use 'em 6 months from now. Sooooo, just take a Midol or sumthin' and try to relax a l'il. Spring is here, not late fall. Go forth and have some fun. Go out and cavort nekkid in your petunias. It'll do you a world of good.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Go out and cavort nekkid in your petunias. It'll do you a world of good.

Petunias, impatiens, and tomatoes are going in the ground next week. Tomato stakes are going in today.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So let's say that you're working an early season high school varsity game.

Early in the game your partner calls a very rare "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul, as the new rule states. He also reports it as a delay of game team warning.

Later in the game your partner calls a technical foul on the same team for failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout for having water on the playing court (I actually called a warning for this this past season, first one ever) after already charging a team warning for the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul. Opposing team makes both free throws for the technical foul, and later goes on to win the game by one point.

After the game, after consulting his rule book, the losing athletic director, after handing both of you your checks, politely mentions to both you, and your partner, that you guys might have blown the call, because his team only violated one of the delay of game criterion (water on the court) and should not have received a delay of game warning for the intentional foul on the thrower-in because the player did not go over the boundary line. Thus, his team should have received just a warning for the water on the court, and the opposing team should not have shot, and made, the two technical free throws.

He also tells you that he will be calling your assigner the next morning to discuss the call with your assigner, after which he says that he hopes that both of you have a "Happy Holiday", and that he hopes to see you guys again later in the season.

At this point, don't you think that it would have made a difference in how you, and your partner, would have felt about calling that game if you had known if the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul should have also included a team warning as part of the penalty? Wouldn't it have been nice to know that you and your partner nailed the call, or blew the call? Wouldn't it have mattered then?

And then there's always the possibility of a new rule, or a rule change, or a rule clarification, showing up on a preseason rules refresher exam, that, for some associations, counts toward the number, and quality, of assignments that officials get. If your association gives such an exam, then wouldn't it have mattered then?

I don't have "an assignor." And I don't have an "association" that "assigns games." And it's unlikely that the commissioners and coaches and ADs have a clue about the implications of these decisions, much less know how to piece together the appropriate rules to conclude we $#@$ed up. And I still don't give a $#%@.

They haven't even published these things yet. Let's let the NFHS completely %$#@ it up before we start whinging about it, k?

I actually had a situation that ended up in Struckoff's hands a few years ago. I had passed it to the state office, they sent it up the chain, and I was told I handled it right, although that could change in the future after it gets discussed. The NFHS cared enough about the situation that it didn't result in a case play, an interpretation, or a rule change.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

I am with Rich and JR on this. There is too much worrying about a rule that has not yet to make print yet. And I give them a little more credit as this is a college rule that has some standards for what has been done in the past. Maybe that does not make since to someone that does not work that level, but I am sure there will be a lot of similar wording and exceptions. I will worry when the rules and interpretation are in print. Then as said before we can complain how they screwed it up.

Peace