Whaddya got?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do you have a case play or interpretation that suggests this is a NF directive issue?

Better yet, wasn't it you that claimed that Struckoff had no concept of the rules?

It was a POE about two seasons ago. It was right there in the rules book for you in black and white. All you have to do is read it.

Just because Struckhoff doesn't understand the NFHS rules very well doesn't mean that the committee can't instruct all officials to enforce them as written.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

And Nevada, if you're telling me that you would issue a T for hanging on the rim, and an intentional foul...well then good luck with that.

Nope, I recommend one or the other. Back in post #28 of this thread, I stated to call the IPF.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It was a POE about two seasons ago. It was right there in the rules book for you in black and white. All you have to do is read it.

Just because Struckhoff doesn't understand the NFHS rules very well doesn't mean that the committee can't instruct all officials to enforce them as written.

You will not find any part of that POE or a specific interpretation that suggest the play in question to have a PC foul call. And when you do, then I will worry about what is in black and white. But there always has to be one guy.

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You will not find any part of that POE or a specific interpretation that suggest the play in question to have a PC foul call. And when you do, then I will worry about what is in black and white. But there always has to be that guy.

Peace

Fixed it for ya.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You will not find any part of that POE or a specific interpretation that suggest the play in question to have a PC foul call. And when you do, then I will worry about what is in black and white. But there always has to be one guy.

Never said that there was a POE or directive to "have a PC foul" what I wrote was that the NFHS has clearly directed the officials of the HS game to enforce the rules as written and not deviate with personal philosophies.
Too bad that you can't grasp that. You are guilty of advising people to fail to follow the rules as written by advocating that a technical foul be charged in this specific situation when the rules clearly forbid such as the play involved physical contact.

2010-11 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

2. 1. RULES ENFORCEMENT. There appears to be continued movement away from consistent enforcement of NFHS playing rules. Personal interpretations of the rules by individual officials have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risk to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS, negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game. Illegal tactics that are permitted – are promoted. When officials allow players to use illegal tactics without penalty, the behavior is condoned and consequently encouraged. When officials consistently enforce the playing rules as intended, players and coaches are able to make the proper adjustments – promoting skill development and a level playing field.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are guilty of advising people to fail to follow the rules as written by advocating that a technical foul be charged in this specific situation when the rules clearly forbid such as the play involved physical contact.

The rules forbid calling a technical foul when there is physical contact?

News to me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Brad

The rules forbid calling a technical foul when there is physical contact?

News to me.

Yes, Brad, in this specific situation. Please read the entire sentence and think about it before popping off.

The specific situation is contact by or on an airborne shooter while the ball is dead. NFHS rule 4-19-1 note states that this is a personal foul.

If the player were not an airborne shooter, then a technical foul would be appropriate. However, that is not the case here.

[Brad]

Maybe you should have highlighted that part in red!

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

Maybe you should have highlighted that part in red!

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

Exactly!!!

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Ball through the net. Dead ball until team secures it to begin throw-in. No matter which way you try to spin it, a technical foul call is warranted.

[APG]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Ball through the net. Dead ball until team secures it to begin throw-in. No matter which way you try to spin it, a technical foul call is warranted.

Nevada's contention is that even though the ball is dead, the airborne exception applies here. I'd contend, that this is not what the airborne exception was intended for, and I would take a hit for calling a T instead of an intentional personal foul even when it's not "by the book."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Nevada's contention is that even though the ball is dead, the airborne exception applies here. I'd contend, that this is not what the airborne exception was intended for, and I would take a hit for calling a T instead of an intentional personal foul even when it's not "by the book."

Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

You got no arguments from me...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

You are not going to defeat him with logic.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Brad

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14). So whether we like it or not, the rest of your citation is irrelevant.

I'm not breaking any new ground in this thread, but the situation under discussion involves CONTACT, during a DEAD BALL (6-7-1), by an AIRBORNE SHOOTER (4-1-1). By rule -- again, whether you like it or not -- this is a personal foul (4-19-1).

If you would "rather take the hit" for calling a T, I can actually understand that. But by rule, this is a personal foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14). So whether we like it or not, the rest of your citation is irrelevant.

I'm not breaking any new ground in this thread, but the situation under discussion involves CONTACT, during a DEAD BALL (6-7-1), by an AIRBORNE SHOOTER (4-1-1). By rule -- again, whether you like it or not -- this is a personal foul (4-19-1).

If you would "rather take the hit" for calling a T, I can actually understand that. But by rule, this is a personal foul.

Then explain 10.3.7?

Peace