FT violation?

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Wasn't trying to be harsh or condescending, but now here you go.

I really don't think that "being a 3rd year official" is an excuse for not knowing the rules. That particular situation has been in the manuals previously (try your online casebook if you don't, have your manuals with you, it can be found 9.1.1 Situation. It is apparent that more officials need to spend more time on the rules. Do yourself, your partners, and the game a favor, learn the rules.

We aren't getting paid to gradually learn the rules, or learn them as we go. Your said that you are "only a third year official" which is a "piss poor excuse." I have worked college games with 3rd year officials that have saved the crew because they took the time to learn and know the rules while they were working to improve other aspects of their game.

If you have not seen this play ever, work more youth games, it happens. That is why it is in the book, that you have yet to read. Did you even look it up after your game? Do you take your rule books with you to games?

We need our partners to know the rules. Be the partner the crew has confidence in, not the partner we can't go to because rules knowledge is weak.

You are right no excuses. More time in the books it is. Yes I did look it up after the game and yes I take the rules book and case book and handbook with me to every game.
No one knows every rule perfectly, every case play perfectly or can rule properly every situation, every time. No one.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"You'll learn it better if you look it up yourself and you'll likely find something else you didn't know."

I'll agree with this Bob.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

Sorry I forgot to quote the poster who earlier said that the no violation would be a much more logical rule. I was just stating my thoughts that it should be a violation due to what I mentioned. I don't see why someone should get a do over bc of their error.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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.

No player control, so no time out to prevent a violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No player control, so no time out to prevent a violation?

Player control is not required, but according to the rule it's an immediate violation.

Personally, I'd support a change.

[BillyMac]

Forget the muff, or dropped ball, for now. Pretend the shooter still has the ball in her hands.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Player control is not required.

For the shooter's team to call a timeout during a live ball?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No player control, so no time out to prevent a violation?

I would agree to this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I would agree to this.

If it wasn't an immediate violation as bob jenkins stated earlier.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Forget the muff, or dropped ball, for now. Pretend the shooter still has the ball in her hands.



For the shooter's team to call a timeout during a live ball?

I meant it as more of a generic statement than just this play. Sorry for the confusion.

But, if A can request a TO to prevent a vioaltion under the ROP procedure, then why shouldn't they be able to request one here? (under a rules change)

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

You are right no excuses. More time in the books it is. Yes I did look it up after the game and yes I take the rules book and case book and handbook with me to every game.
No one knows every rule perfectly, every case play perfectly or can rule properly every situation, every time. No one.

Speak for yourself