IPAD on the Bench

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I would think that with ever improving technology, the Fed is going to have make some adjustments with regards to portable computers.

They could, but why would have have to?

I think their goal is to keep schools from feeling pressure to invest in technology as a way to improve their chance of winning the game.....which would probably lead to an arms race that most schools can't afford. They can't have any influence on what technology a team uses in preparation for the game but certainly can keep it off the sideline.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Their goal is to keep schools from feeling pressure to invest in technology.

Yeah. Like shot clocks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yeah. Like shot clocks.

I think the reality is they are trying to avoid constant mistakes that you see on many levels in college with the shot clock. I do not see that as a technology issue rather than an application issue.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the reality is they are trying to avoid constant mistakes that you see on many levels in college with the shot clock. I do not see that as a technology issue rather than an application issue.

Peace

It is not a technology issue or an application issue, it is $$$$ issue.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is not a technology issue or an application issue, it is $$$$ issue.

Probably, but if they allowed the shot clock to be used, and they could still allow it to be used by state adoption, there would be numerous situations of misapplication and at this time no replay to correct those mistakes as we possibly have at the college levels.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Probably, but if they allowed the shot clock to be used, and they could still allow it to be used by state adoption, there would be numerous situations of misapplication and at this time no replay to correct those mistakes as we possibly have at the college levels.

Peace

Agree completely. Definitely would be a competency issue, for tables and officials. I know 90% of the HS officials in my area would screw it up regularly.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Probably, but if they allowed the shot clock to be used, and they could still allow it to be used by state adoption, there would be numerous situations of misapplication and at this time no replay to correct those mistakes as we possibly have at the college levels.

Peace

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Agree completely. Definitely would be a competency issue, for tables and officials. I know 90% of the HS officials in my area would screw it up regularly.

Concerning competency of table operations, if the guidelines in Appendix 4 of the Officials Manual would be followed, there would be less chance of errors happening.

[Raymond]

NCAA-M just posted a memorandum reminding everyone that iPads are prohibited from being on the bench, even if just used to keep stats:

...While the keeping of statistics on a computer or iPad may seem innocent enough and may not fall completely within the parameters of these restrictions, any exception to permit the keeping of statistics would be difficult if not impossible to enforce since the same equipment could be used to send and receive information...

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is not a technology issue or an application issue, it is $$$$ issue.

This is what I've heard too.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by grunewar

This is what I've heard too.

I do not think the two things have to be mutually exclusive.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think the two things have to be mutually exclusive.

Peace

I think it's a combination of three things:

1) $$$$
2) Timing errors / training
3) Since (most) schools can't recruit, if they feel the best chance to win is to slow the game down, they should be allowed to do so. "Entertainment" is not the issue it is in NCAA / pro.

[bowlingref]

I Pad For Refs, instant access to rules they cannot recall.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They could, but why would have have to?

As the technology continues to advance, devices are being created that do not meet the description that's addressed by the rule. That's why. Whether they address it with revised rules or case plays and interpretations, it's going to be necessary.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

As the technology continues to advance, devices are being created that do not meet the description that's addressed by the rule. That's why. Whether they address it with revised rules or case plays and interpretations, it's going to be necessary.

Unless you're advocating a change to permit greater use of computers, every device out there is covered by the rule and every device on the horizon is also covered by the rule and is prohibited. A "computer" doesn't just mean a desktop or a laptop computer. Your smartphone is a computer too. A tablet is a computer. An iTouch is a computer. They're all just very small computers. They're all prohibited unless used for statistics only.

"transmission device" pretty much covers about anything that could be used to send or receive information form/to anywhere.

I suppose you could argue that we can't tell whether they are being used for stats or not but no rule change will change that.

Are you saying you think they should loosen the rule to allow computers of some types?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you're advocating a change to permit greater use of computers, every device out there is covered by the rule and every device on the horizon is also covered by the rule and is prohibited. A "computer" doesn't just mean a desktop or a laptop computer. Your smartphone is a computer too. A tablet is a computer. An iTouch is a computer. They're all just very small computers. They're all prohibited unless used for statistics only.

"transmission device" pretty much covers about anything that could be used to send or receive information form/to anywhere.

I suppose you could argue that we can't tell whether they are being used for stats or not but no rule change will change that.

Are you saying you think they should loosen the rule to allow computers of some types?

I'm saying that has technology evolves, they will have to become more descriptive and address new innovations and products. They will have to make changes either by rule or by case play or interpretation. It's my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine. Time will determine if I am correct.