Continuation or not?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Adam

Mark, you completely missed my point. "Correctly" is simply the way those in charge of your particular level/game want it called. Anything else is just obstinance, and being "right" can get you fired.

Adam:

This is not a game of tag.

When an interpretation is announced and it is incorrect because the rules do not allow for such an interpretation it is the responsibility of officials to address the problem with the powers that be, especially in the case of basketball officiating where officials (the real rules experts) are practically non-existent on the rules committees. The members of the rules committees can stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels but that does not make an interpretation that cannot be defended by rules a correct interpretation.

I do not doubt the rules knowledge of college officials especially the way the rules have become so convoluted as they are today, especially with regard to POIs, TFs (both administrative and non-administrative), FF #1, FF #2, and timing situations (both shot clock and game clock). But real problem is that college officials (especially Div. I officials) could exert tremendous pressure on the rules committees to produce rules that are written better and correct interpretations and approved rulings.

There was a time when the vast majority of the men's supervisors of officials for all of the Div. I conferences were former Div. I officials. They wrote the CCA Manual for Officiating Mechanics. Why? Because officials are the experts with regard to mechanics too, not just rules.

You are young, and are at an excellent point in your career to start studying the history of the rules and mechanics and become even better at this than me. Maybe become another Al Battista (a personal friend of mine too), who is even better a historian of the rules than even me.

MTD, Sr.