2 Different Rules Questions
 

Was working a Men's JUCO game last night and these two scenarios came up:

1st Play

WHITE is shooting the 1st shot of a 1 and 1. Shot goes up, we have a foul on a push on WHITE for shoving a BLUE team member completely under the goal and the BLUE team is also in the bonus. Shot goes in. We handled it like this:

Counted the basket, reported the foul on WHITE. WHITE then shot the 2nd free throw of the bonus with the lane cleared. We then went to the other end where BLUE would attempt their 1 and 1 with everyone on the lane line and it will be a live ball on the first shot. Did we do this correctly? We were thinking that's the only way we could of done it, but I'm sure there is something we were missing.

2nd Play

BLUE has the ball for a throw in after a made basket. They throw the ball in and the official begins his 10 second count. On a pass, the ball is deflected by the WHITE team and its now rolling on the floor but WHITE has not gained team control so the official continues his 10 second count as a tipped pass does not negate team control. During the attempt to get the ball, a WHITE team member is on the floor going after the ball and a BLUE team member now goes through the kid on the floor to get the ball. We doubled up on the whistle as it was an easy foul. I was thinking that BLUE still had team control since the official still has a 10 count, other 2 partners were thinking that there is no team control so we shot the free throws because white was in the bonus.

Let me know how you would rule on this. I'm saying, by rule, since the 10 second count was still going that there is still team control, and therefor the foul on BLUE should of been a team control foul and WHITE should of been awarded the ball at the nearest spot on the floor.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! If you have any rule references or case book plays in the NCAA books that would be great

Poor grammar aside, you were correct in both cases.

I will say that you reasoning in the second is backwards, though. It's not "since there was a 10-second count, there is still team control," it's "since there was team control, there was still the 10-second count."

Et Tu, Brute?
 

:eek:

:)

Poor typing aside, ...

Poor grammar (run on sentences, incorrect words, and probably a few typos too) vs. what is probably just a typo (a single missing letter) are hardly the same thing.

Either way, who cares? What's the point of pointing out someone's poor grammar on a basketball board?

If you didn't understand what the poster was trying to say, I can understand that, but pointing out someone's poor grammar just to point it out is pretty anal and pretentious, if you ask me.

While Bob may not be known for his interpersonal skills here, I don't think he was out of line whatsoever on this thread.

Somewhere along the way, it became "rude" to correct people. The problem with that is, the whole point of correcting people is to make a change for the better. If you stay silent, you can't make a change, and the error just plain continues. Meanwhile, writing skills erode in the online world (a world that's not going away).

Bob was trying to be helpful, simulataneously in two different areas. Let's leave it at that.

If that poor grammar means someone has to read it 2-3 times just to figure out what they were trying to say, it matters. Compose questions clearly and you'll get a lot better answers. The same skills apply on the court....clear communications are valuable.

And I agree with this. But that's not what bob said. He simply pointed out that the poster has poor grammar. Not that, because of the poor grammar, he couldn't understand what the poster was trying to get at.

And I would argue that there is a time, a place and away to correct people.

Making a snide remark such as "poor grammar skills aside" is not helping to correct someone. It's a nice way of saying "your writing sucks." That's not offering any sort of help. It's just being pretentious and snobby.

Instead, maybe if bob had said something to the effect of "You know, I couldn't quite get what you were saying because you had some poor grammar, some run-on sentences, etc. If you can communicate more clearly, we'd be better able to help you out" it wouldn't have come across the way it did.

Hey fiasco, there is a space between a & way!! j/k

I feel the same way about grammar on the internet as I do about being a fashion police :D

thank You; that wuz a point i mean't to briing up butt forget too.

Nah, two different animals.

Like it or not, and regardless of whether people will admit it, you're judged on the words you use and the way you portray yourself, even online. That's why I'm a stickler to grammar in all mediums.

Fashion police? That comes down to whether the people who hired you care or not.

Exactly how much of a stickler are you? :D

While this is true, people often go overboard in terms of judging others when it comes to making sweeping generalizations about a person based solely on their grammar.

For example, I really get a kick when people I've worked with will throw out someone's resume just because there's a typo or two. Yes, let's completely disregard someone's entire work history and accomplishments because they made a grammatical mistake on a piece of paper. That's great management right there.

Likewise, I think it's pretty foolish to judge an official's ability on the court in large measure by their ability to string words together on a keyboard. It's just looking for nits to pick just to pick nits, for the most part.

Then check, check, and recheck before putting yourself out there. If you're looking to sell a product, make sure that product is shined up nicely for presentation.

By the way, none of this has anything to with our abilities on the court. This only has to do with our abilities here.

And you could say I'm a pretty good stickler, like not altering one's quote. Besides, "mediums" and "media" are both acceptable.

Dictionary.com? That's the grammar equivalent of Wikipedia, just FYI, as long as we're picking nits about grammar.

It's a bit more complicated than just saying both are acceptable. It depends on how the word is being used.

If you consult Merriam Webster, the accepted plural form of medium when you're talking about conveyance of information is media.

"Mediums" is reserved for "material or technical means of artistic expression."

That's exactly what he meant. Why are you looking to be a plumber today?

I didn't intend to start a firestorm. The phrase "must (should / would / could) OF" as a replacement for "must've" really chaps me, for whatever reasons (that I couldn't explain to your satisfaction anyway).

Once again, you're not understanding the context of the conversation. And, once again, if you get confused, sometimes it can help to read back through the thread so you can understand what exactly is being said.

But it's okay to point out when someone is anal, pretentious, and snobby?:confused:

:hijack:

Plumbing the Depths of Depravity Again?
 

Oh oh, there someone goes yet another time, blatantly slandering the fine vocation which has served not only me and my family but also thousands and thousands of needy customers with practical, effective, cost-conscious solutions for leaking pipes and faucets and clogged toilets and drains.

Why not say instead, "Why are you looking to be a developer of an officials' association management system today?" :rolleyes:

May your wife's garbage disposal clog with turkey and yam parts tomorrow right before the football game starts, and may your local plumbing agency be unavailable so that you have to try to unclog it yourself but you end up breaking something so that what I, an honored and esteemed plumber, could take care of for a mere 108.00 costs you about 872.00 once you get around to replacing everything you broke when you shoved your tire iron down there to try to dislodge whatever is clogging things up and you end up breaking the sink for all your untrained efforts. :D

"Every time you flush, you put food on my family's table"

P.S. Anybody remember what this thread was about originally? I forgot.

I've done it before, and I'll do it again. But hey, everyone needs a quixotic quest.

Just because he didn't say it to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's not what he said. The rest was implied, and most got it. If the OP (or you) wanted to know what exactly he meant, a great suggestion would be to ask rather than pop off with a self-righteous response.

And for the record, I've been guilty of being both pretentious and self-righteous.

I want to keep caring about this thread, but my turkey is late getting into the brine.

Straight Flush ???
 

Hey! That's my line.

Really? You can't be serious. I understood perfectly what Bob said....the OP, not without a bit of extra effort.

Nothing Bob said was inappropriate. You just want to pick a fight with him (and others who agree with him) over his comment about the poorly written post for some reason.

Thanks, Snaqs. Now I can't get "Impossible Dream" out of my head!

You're not alone, sir. All you can do is call people on it.

Just like what we do, though, sometimes, there's backlash when we blow the whistle.

Maybe you guys should go start your own grammar forum.

I have an idea. Maybe we should all stop worrying about Grammar the same way people worry too much about how someone said something.

Fisaco you spend a lot of time here trying to tell others how to talk to others. If you do not like what someone has to say, do not read it or respond to it. It is really easy, I do it almost every day here (I have to or I would get mad all the time). If you are going to call out Bob for his comment about Grammar, then someone needs to call you out about worrying about how others say things here.

Now is someone going to answer the man's question or we just going to debate something that really does not matter at this point?

Peace

Bob answered the question immediately.

Given the way things usually work around here, I'm going to guess we'll all continue doing the latter.

So, is this kind of one of those "do what I say, not what I do" kind of things? :p

Wasn't it answered in post #2.

Did the rest of you answer? I know I did not answer after it appeared that everyone wanted to debate Grammar and how someone feels about a certain comment. ;)

Peace

No. If you have not noticed I do not read many of your posts. But that did not stop you from getting sensitive about what others said to someone else.

Peace

Huh? How the heck do I know if you read my posts or not? The only way I can tell is if you respond to one of my posts, which you've done twice within this thread and multiple times within the past week. So I guess you really do read my posts. :rolleyes:

It is clear your thing is to get upset over what someone says to you and what people do not say to you. Remember I am only responding to you now because you quoted me or we would not likely be having this conversation now. Actually it is going to end now. But it is clear you had a bug up your behind about something that really was not about you and the reason many people in this very thread are responding to you. Go back to being a troll, I have better thing to do this weekend.

Peace

Why should the rest have answered? Bob's answer was clear and correct.

LOL I'm not a troll I just enjoy getting under your skin because it's soooo easy. :p Especially because you can't resist having the last word.