Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You first gave me the distinction of the clock running vs. stopped, now your distinction is the clock only running for a short time...

Really? You might want to re-read what I said. I said one scenario will allow the quarter to come to an end and one won't. Your justification obviously includes re-writing what I said. And I guess the new word for "judgement" in your rule book is now "feelings".

10-1-5 gives us the leeway to apply our judgement as to whether the "act" of repeatedly violating is causing the game to become an action-less contest.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Really? You might want to re-read what I said. I said one scenario will allow the quarter to come to an end and one won't. Your justification obviously includes re-writing what I said. And I guess the new word for "judgement" in your rule book is now "feelings".

10-1-5 gives us the leeway to apply our judgement as to whether the "act" of repeatedly violating is causing the game to become an action-less contest.

Sorry, I was not trying to re-write anything. I was only trying to point out you were giving examples and reasoning that are not specifically mentioned in the rules. They are, on the surface, reasonable enough, and I'm not trying put them down.

I'm not exchanging the word "judgement" for "feelings", but I know officials who get into trouble by doing just that. I know you are using the words "...and similar acts" as your basis for using judgement, but I'm not sure 10-1-5 gives us much room for judgement outside of the specific examples in (a) thru (f). (c) thru (f) are specific delay examples where the official warning is given first, and (a) is the specific situation at the beginning of the half. If it was to apply to ANY violation that is repeated, why wouldn't it say that? Why is each specific delay example given it's own section? The only section that seems to allow judgement is (b), which is preventing the ball from becoming promptly live or being put into play. Even then, it mentions using the resumption-of-play procedure in certain situations first. And we all seem to agree (b) does not apply to the OP, as the ball is alive during the FT.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Sorry, I was not trying to re-write anything. I was only trying to point out you were giving examples and reasoning that are not specifically mentioned in the rules. They are, on the surface, reasonable enough, and I'm not trying put them down.

I'm not exchanging the word "judgement" for "feelings", but I know officials who get into trouble by doing just that. I know you are using the words "...and similar acts" as your basis for using judgement, but I'm not sure 10-1-5 gives us much room for judgement outside of the specific examples in (a) thru (f). (c) thru (f) are specific delay examples where the official warning is given first, and (a) is the specific situation at the beginning of the half. If it was to apply to ANY violation that is repeated, why wouldn't it say that? Why is each specific delay example given it's own section? The only section that seems to allow judgement is (b), which is preventing the ball from becoming promptly live or being put into play. Even then, it mentions using the resumption-of-play procedure in certain situations first. And we all seem to agree (b) does not apply to the OP, as the ball is alive during the FT.

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

My seventh grade English teacher, Mr. Britton, used to tell us, "There's no judge in judgment".

From Wikipedia: In a non-legal context, spelling differs between countries. The spelling judgement (with e added) is common in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context. The spelling judgment without the e is however often listed first and in any case without comment or regional restriction in major UK dictionaries. In British English, the spelling judgment is correct when referring to a court's or judge's formal ruling, whereas the spelling judgement is used for other meanings. In American English, judgment prevails in all contexts. In Canada and Australia, in a non-legal context both forms are equally acceptable, although judgment is more common in Canada and judgement in Australia. However, in a legal and theological context, judgment is the only correct form. In New Zealand the form judgment is the preferred spelling in dictionaries, newspapers and legislation, although the variant judgement can also be found in all three categories. Usage in South Africa is similar to that in Australia. The spelling judgment is also found in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My seventh grade English teacher, Mr. Britton, used to tell us, "There's no judge in judgment".

From Wikipedia: In a non-legal context, spelling differs between countries. The spelling judgement (with e added) is common in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context. The spelling judgment without the e is however often listed first and in any case without comment or regional restriction in major UK dictionaries. In British English, the spelling judgment is correct when referring to a court's or judge's formal ruling, whereas the spelling judgement is used for other meanings. In American English, judgment prevails in all contexts. In Canada and Australia, in a non-legal context both forms are equally acceptable, although judgment is more common in Canada and judgement in Australia. However, in a legal and theological context, judgment is the only correct form. In New Zealand the form judgment is the preferred spelling in dictionaries, newspapers and legislation, although the variant judgement can also be found in all three categories. Usage in South Africa is similar to that in Australia. The spelling judgment is also found in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

M&M Guy might have been the author......

[Texas Aggie]

"The judgment of the court..." is correct usage. So is, "the official has good judgement." For those of us who have spent more than a decade in the legal field, please excuse us if we leave the "e" out in all contexts, correct or not.

I can't find the rule in the most current rulebook I have (last year), but I could swear there was a rule that covered repeated violations and making a mockery of the game. I don't recall whether it was a T or a forfeit.

Contrary to M&M's point, 10.5 clearly applies. I'm not sure why Cam and others continue to argue the point; its obvious. If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

Most importantly, there is no state body or supervisor that is going to have a problem with you putting a stop to this.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

"The judgment of the court..." is correct usage. So is, "the official has good judgement." For those of us who have spent more than a decade in the legal field, please excuse us if we leave the "e" out in all contexts, correct or not.

I can't find the rule in the most current rulebook I have (last year), but I could swear there was a rule that covered repeated violations and making a mockery of the game. I don't recall whether it was a T or a forfeit.

Contrary to M&M's point, 10.5 clearly applies. I'm not sure why Cam and others continue to argue the point; its obvious. If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

Most importantly, there is no state body or supervisor that is going to have a problem with you putting a stop to this.

Because it's fun to argue/discuss and we have the time to do it. But if I have a game tonight and this situation occurs, I'm with you-repeated violations aren't going to happen.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

I've already stated my position on the actual play. But right now, I just want to reiterate for the 3,684th time that Rule 2-3 (not caseplay 2.3) allows the referee to rule on any points NOT COVERED BY THE RULES. Free throw violations clearly are covered by the rules, as M&M has been pointing out. If you warn and then assess a technical foul (as I've stated that I would do), you may not do it on the basis of Rule 2-3.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

It's good to be back.

And it's good to be judgd...no "e", right?...