FT violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by maven

It's so much easier to ask you than to pore through the dang books!

And this is the twenty-first century. In my opinion, this Forum is as much of a research tool as a paper, and ink, rulebook, and casebook. We have many tools in our "officials tool belt", rulebook, casebook, mechanics manual, digital versions of the three previously mentioned tools, DVD's of plays, colleagues on our local board, interpreters on our local boards, camps, local board websites, and the Forum. The Forum just happens to be one of those tools, one that wasn't available to us twenty years ago. It's better to "get straight" on the rules here on Al Gore's internet, then to not ever "get straight" on the rules. I know that other Forum members disagree with me, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... It's better to "get straight" on the rules here on Al Gore's internet, then to not ever "get straight" on the rules. I know that other Forum members disagree with me, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

It's better to look the rule up yourself and THEN come here and say "I read 9.1.1 but I'm still not sure if it applies to my situation".

If you come here without looking it up yourself your first 2 replies might be from "Old School" and you're no better off then when you started.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's better to look the rule up yourself and then come here.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

....Would you consider the Forum "Search" feature as "look(ing) up the rule yourself"? ....

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 But still, the response might be 2 years old and outdated.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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

"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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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.