Ohio team loses H.S. state title after late hanging-on-the-rim technical foul

[mutantducky]

the fanboy accusation seems to be a default charge by some here when they get opinions that don't match what they believe in.
I agree with the T. But yeah I also think it was reasonable to pass on it. I would have called it. But I'm sure if you had a room of 10 refs, there would be 3 or 4 who would have passed on it.

[bballref3966]

I don't care what fanboys think, but if you don't put a whistle on this, you're likely going to have to answer to an angry Defiance coach and the OHSAA supervisor.

The rule supports the call.

I'm surprised we haven't seen twocentsworth yet.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

the fanboy accusation seems to be a default charge by some here when they get opinions that don't match what they believe in.

Biggest negative on these forums.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Biggest negative on these forums.

If that is the biggest negative, then this is a superb forum. Because sites I see that don't involve officials are full of a bunch of jacka$$es who purposely discard any semblance social etiquette and respectful discourse. You should be happy to be here.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If that is the biggest negative, then this is a superb forum. Because sites I see that don't involve officials are full of a bunch of jacka$$es who purposely discard any semblance social etiquette and respectful discourse. You should be happy to be here.

Yes, it's definitely better than your example, but it's still a pretty big negative. A number of members just fallback to the "fanboy" dismissal rather than engage in legitimate discussion, which defeats the purpose of them posting at all.

[SC Official]

Maybe the reason the "fanboy" accusation gets used on this forum is because so many of the posters accused of it come on here and throw around their opinions and criticisms without having the first clue what the rules, mechanics, and philosophies of basketball officiating are.

If you want to post opinions and criticisms on an officiating message board, common sense (fanboys' favorite phrase) would suggest that you have enough knowledge about what we do in order to make reasonable, legitimate claims.

We know who the fanboys are because once championship season ends, they pretty much go into hiding until next year.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Yes, it's definitely better than your example, but it's still a pretty big negative. A number of members just fallback to the "fanboy" dismissal rather than engage in legitimate discussion, which defeats the purpose of them posting at all.

Then stop acting like fanboys. You are supposed to be an official and your judgment should be in question, not acting like someone got robbed because a judgment was made.

And as stated, there are fanboy sites that call you a lot worse when they disagree with you about an actual rule.

Peace

[Matt]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Biggest negative on these forums.

If the shoe fits...

You've got that issue on multiple sports on multiple forums. So maybe it's not the rest of the world.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Matt

If the shoe fits...

You've got that issue on multiple sports on multiple forums. So maybe it's not the rest of the world.

Not really. There may be the occasional thread where I'm a little over the top, but sometimes they're learning experiences. Most of my arguments are based in logical thinking or reading the rule as written and applying it myself. In the case of the Luke Kuechly ejection I was correct, unlike the majority of responses on this board. Please don't act like I'm always taking the wrong side blindly.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Not really. There may be the occasional thread where I'm a little over the top, but sometimes they're learning experiences. ....

And that's when you get the fanboy designation. When you come to an officiating site and argue a JUDGMENT call (ie: UCLA/SMU) for the sole purpose of arguing, don't expect positive feedback. You go A LOT over the top whenever the majority of the opinions are opposite of what you believe to be true; that holds true especially in the football forum.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And that's when you get the fanboy designation. When you come to an officiating site and argue a JUDGMENT call (ie: UCLA/SMU) for the sole purpose of arguing, don't expect positive feedback. You go A LOT over the top whenever the majority of the opinions are opposite of what you believe to be true; that holds true especially in the football forum.

My argument in that case was based on what I observed and applying the rule as written to those observations. I wasn't over the top at all in that thread. Merely a difference of opinion.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by hbk314

My argument in that case was based on what I observed and applying the rule as written to those observations. I wasn't over the top at all in that thread. Merely a difference of opinion.

How about the thread for the Arizona v Wisconsin game in which you questioned what a crew discusses at halftime and stated that there were way more fouls called in the second half than the first half. When I provided the actual numbers (20 & 23) that proved you to be a liar, your only response was "grow up."
You were shown to be dead wrong and responded like a scolded teenager instead of an adult who desires to have a rational discussion about officiating issues. Here are two words for you "good riddance."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

... occasional thread ... a little over the top

Milk through the nose.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Milk through the nose.

It's true. The vast majority of my posts on here are reasonable. That some people dismiss me as a fanboy rather than engage in legitimate discussion doesn't change that fact.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by hbk314

It's true. The vast majority of my posts on here are reasonable. That some people dismiss me as a fanboy rather than engage in legitimate discussion doesn't change that fact.

What exactly is your definition of "legitimate discussion?"

When one posts their thoughts and perceptions of something, and then is shown that they are wrong based on rules, case plays, videos, etc but still keeps harping on the same thing...how is that "legitimate discussion?"