The Future Is Now ...
 

I won't give you a big argument about this, to each his own, but, why can't "look(ing) the rule up yourself" include looking up the rule on the Forum and reading some "words" on your smartphone, laptop, tablet, or personal computer? I realize that looking something up on the Forum is somewhat different than looking up some "words" in a paper, and ink book, but is it really that different? Would you consider the Forum "Search" feature as "look(ing) up the rule yourself"? It's really not wasting our time because we don't have to respond to questions that we feel are undeserving of our attention.

And, please don't mention (that name) two more times.

I would consider it research. But still, the response might be 2 years old and outdated. So, again, what have you gained?

At what point do you look up the rule yourself? An official needs to be able to navigate through the rule book on their own.

The Information Age ...
 

"On your own" is the key to our polite, I hope, disagreement. I do see a difference in reading a paper, and ink, book, or a digital PDF file, on your own, written by bunch of experts, and reading a website, on your own, that offers the views of many that differ in their expertise, but a website that does feature many experts, but where you see a big difference, I only see a small difference.

Again, it's really not wasting our time because we don't have to respond to questions that we feel are undeserving of our attention, we can just ignore them. I chose not to ignore them, others may chose otherwise.

It's the Information Age. As an old fart, I'm having more trouble adjusting to it than most of you young whippersnappers, but I do understand that information will be accessible in many different ways, ways in the near future that many of us, in the present, can't even begin to imagine.

I never said it was "wasting our time", so I don't know why you are using that phrase. But you are pawning off the rule book as "paper and ink written by some experts" and equating it to some supposed experts spouting off our opinions and interpretations. The 2 are not the same.

You need to know the rule before you can discuss its interpretation or have an opinion on it.

So what was your, and your more experience crew's, piss poor excuse for not knowing a rule that a third year guy knows? ??? !!!!???!!!!???

Just jabbin ya, :) (although there is a point in there somewhere, I think)

Your point is valid. But I think the point of icallfoul's rant is that "only being a 3rd year official" is not an excuse to not know a rule b/c there are plenty of 3rd year officials who know the book inside and out.

If you don't know a rule, you just don't know the rule.

BTW - while I do agree that this site is a resource... I truly think looking for it in the book is FAR superior. How many times have we grabbed the book to look for something, and while looking for it discover something else entirely? Ask the question here, and you get the answer to just that question (along with a semi-polite discussion regarding whether asking the forum is as good as looking it up, along with a minor bruise on your ego when you're told to look it up yourself). Look for the answer in the book, and you'll find the answer - and likely learn something else along the way.

A less strong version of getting a fish or learning to fish.

Completely fair enough... and ps - sorry to hear about your member. Sounds like it hurts.

Also, looking up the rule will trigger some scenarios and questions in your head. Then you come to the mountaintop looking for answers that are not so black and white.

To be part of this club, the initiation was worth it.

IMO this is a much more logical approach.

And I'm still not sure we had a violation in the OP. The ball rolled out to the T. So did it roll "forward" or "into the lane" per the case play? If the ball/shooter's foot never broke the plane or the ball is retrieved and shot released within 10 seconds then do we still have a violation?

Yes, in NFHS rules.

Rules, Interpretations, Opinions ...
 

Agree 100%.

However, some may come to the Forum not to get, or give, an interpretation; not to get, or give, an opinion; but to just get the rule straight, so that they will know the rule, understand the rule, and then maybe get into interpretations, or opinions, for themselves, or for the good of the cause.

Once an official knows the rules, then I see no problem with that official coming to the Forum for some help with a rule question.

And I have no problem with coaches, parents, or fans coming straight to the Forum. They don't have to be officials to post on the Forum, right?

Nobody could learn all the rules by just studying the Forum. Impossible. We're good, but not that good. You have to start with the rulebook, casebook, and mechanics manual, but after that, the Forum is a great informational, and educational, resource.

I feel it should be a violation in the fact that if the ball rolls a way they shooter can not retreive it without crossing a boundry and if they don't retreive it they will not shoot the ball with in 10 seconds.

Feelings are irrelevant. What's the rule/case play say?