Backboard padding

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rich

Cause it's a judgment call, plain and simple. It would be the same as me telling a JV guy he missed a travel in the third quarter. I just don't see the point. I only give feedback where it's requested of me.

For a specific situation like this one that doesn't happen too often...nothing wrong with giving a rule of thumb IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Cause it's a judgment call, plain and simple. It would be the same as me telling a JV guy he missed a travel in the third quarter. I just don't see the point. I only give feedback where it's requested of me.

In general, yes, but when it isn't physically possible for the ball to hit the back and continue on into the court in front of the board, it isn't judgement anymore.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You can't go by this. If it hits the top and you blow it dead nobody much will complain either. You obviously know the rule and the same physics debate has been had here on this forum. My personal opinion is if the ball hits the back, it will go backward. If it goes straight down from the board, it's in play.

Another +1,000 points and another fine Cuban cigar.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In general, yes, but when it isn't physically possible for the ball to hit the back and continue on into the court in front of the board, it isn't judgement anymore.

Sure it is. It may not be good judgment, but it's judgment.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sure it is. It may not be good judgment, but it's judgment.

No, it is a fact. Newton settled this issue about 400 years ago.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it is a fact. Newton settled this issue about 400 years ago.

How could it be anything but a judgment call? Are you saying this is evidence that the official doesn't know the rule?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

How could it be anything but a judgment call? Are you saying this is evidence that the official doesn't know the rule?

No, just that he doesn't know elementary physics. It is a basic scientific fact that if it actually hit the back of the board, it would not continue forward unless it went through the board. It would be deflected backwards. That could be determined without ever looking at where it hit. You only need to know where the ball came from and where it ended up. No judgement needed.

It is sort of like a player deflecting the ball. If the ball distinctly changes direction near an isolated player, you don't have to see the player actually touch it to know they touched it.

Judgment is seeing an act and deciding if it did or did not violate a rule....it isn't not being able to see an absolute event.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a basic scientific fact that if it actually hit the back of the board, it would not continue forward unless it went through the board.

It's true. I saw this in an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's true. I saw this in an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

Best episode ever, when Sheldon and Kripke had an athletic contest over office space.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, just that he doesn't know elementary physics. It is a basic scientific fact that if it actually hit the back of the board, it would not continue forward unless it went through the board. It would be deflected backwards. That could be determined without ever looking at where it hit. You only need to know where the ball came from and where it ended up. No judgement needed.

It is sort of like a player deflecting the ball. If the ball distinctly changes direction near an isolated player, you don't have to see the player actually touch it to know they touched it.

Judgment is seeing an act and deciding if it did or did not violate a rule....it isn't not being able to see an absolute event.

You and I define judgment call differently, then.

I tend to view it in the way a baseball umpire views it -- it's a sport where we have protests which do not include judgment decisions. If the official said, "the ball hit the back of the board," that's judgment all day long. That protest would never be upheld.

Dead horse, beaten.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

You and I define judgment call differently, then.

I tend to view it in the way a baseball umpire views it -- it's a sport where we have protests which do not include judgment decisions. If the official said, "the ball hit the back of the board," that's judgment all day long. That protest would never be upheld.

Dead horse, beaten.

Taking the baseball analogy...what if the ump called a strike on a ball that was hit as evidenced by the ball coming off the bat and going to 2nd base? Judgement?

[maven]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Taking the baseball analogy...what if the ump called a strike on a ball that was hit as evidenced by the ball coming off the bat and going to 2nd base? Judgement?

It depends:

1. If the umpire ruled that any swing counts as a strike, then it would be a rule issue.

2. If the umpire ruled that the batter swung and missed, then it would be a judgment issue.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Rich

You and I define judgment call differently, then.

I tend to view it in the way a baseball umpire views it -- it's a sport where we have protests which do not include judgment decisions. If the official said, "the ball hit the back of the board," that's judgment all day long. That protest would never be upheld.

Dead horse, beaten.

I agree that it's a judgement issue. I disagree that it's a judgement issue that shouldn't be brought up by an observing official. Pointing out that the ball would have deflected back towards the thrower had it hit the back of the backboard is a reasonable comment because it's a physical fact that the judgement was wrong.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by ODog

Seems like the consensus is the same as the varsity official's. If it manages to reach the court, don't bother. Thanks!

Didn't believe me, huh, ODog?

Yep, I still lurk here once in a while.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Didn't believe me, huh, ODog?

Yep, I still lurk here once in a while.

Haha, I think I threw this up while I was awaiting your response.

Don't worry, this is always resource #2.