As a referee of child sports, I get to see the delusional thinking of parents about their children constantly.

I find it funny when the rich white kids get scored on 8 times by the poor scrawny mexican kids.

I have to say he's wrong on a number of points.

For one, sports rules are arbitrary. In any competitive game, the only purpose of the rules is to provide an agreed upon environment in which people can compete, in order to make scores easy to tally. For example, imagine basketball with no rules, a player takes a ball from one end of a court to another without dribbling and shoots and makes it. How many points should that be worth? How about using a ladder to make the basket, or any one of the limitless number of other ways a person might come up with on the fly while playing? By having all the competitors agree to a set of rules, regardless of what those rules are, it's possible to referee the game and determine a winner. You can take any game, make arbitrary changes to the rules, and all you've done is create a different game. From chess, to poker, golf, football, curling, or anything else, the only difference is the rule set. Take volleyball, make a few a tweaks, and you have sepak takraw. People might find one rule set more aesthetically pleasing to watch or fun to compete in than another, but that is completely subjective. There are an infinite number of possible rule sets, and if there were infinite people you could find somebody to enjoy each one of them.

Also, it's more than the essential nature of a thing that matters. Nonessential parts can have effects on the essential ones. The golf cart thing is the perfect example. Walking may not be an essential part of the game, but the fatigue it produces has an effect on swinging the club which is an essential part. It's easy to imagine a person unable to walk, but still able to swing a club with force an accuracy. So being disabled does not disadvantage this person on the essential parts of the game. This person spends most of his time on a golf cart, exerting little energy, and shaded from the sun. The other players do a lot of walking, getting tired, sunburned, sweat in their eyes, etc. That could definitely have an effect on the essence of the game.

So the question is then, which is more important: letting golf be defined as having the particular set of rules that it currently has, or being fair by letting the disabled play?
If it makes sense that the court can redefine the rules of golf so that a disabled person can use a cart and it still be called "golf", then surely it makes sense to still call it golf after you change the rules so that everybody can use a cart. And if the court has the power to do the former, it has the power to do the latter. And the court clearly chose the virtue of fairness over the "sanctity" of the rule set. And, since letting only one person use a cart would still be unfair, just to different people, the only sensible course of action is let everybody use one.

Everyone just got on their phones and talked. It reminds me of protests nowadays when the cops start beating or pepperspraying the public takes out their phones. Which fine...one of you...but we don't need 12 different angles just like we don't need 12 911 phone calls.

As a referee I have to step in between angry people all the time...it always works...because I'm not who they're mad at and I'm assertive and not a coward. Step in front of a bully...he'll stop*






*Ok you can't be tiny or annoying for this to work.

Again who the hell wants to be a police officer? It just seems like bullies. I put up with a hell of a lot more crap as a Referee and I take it in stride. I guess maybe if you gave me a taser I'd go Emperor Palpatine on everyones ass.

@hastix you've got a point, but I think the problem is that if you look at their recent track record, there's a clear double standard.

Obama says something completely, unambiguously true, and they call it half-true because they think he was implying something that, in their opinion, isn't true.

A Republican says something that's not factually true, no matter how you slice the numbers, and they rate it "mostly true" because if you substitute the incorrect word he used with the factually accurate word he should have used, it wouldn't (in their opinion) undermine the opinion he was expressing.

Essentially they've gotten into this weird sort of state where they've stopped rating things based on factual accuracy, and have instead started trying to play referee on whether the arguments of the right or the left are correct in their opinion. Problem is, they're still issuing true/false ratings on specific quoted statements, rather than saying "we agree with the right/left on this one."

Here's the original PolitiFact article on this. The first two paragraphs read:

Liberals may want to argue with Sen. Marco Rubio’s remarks at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

But they don’t have the evidence to argue with this statement: "The majority of Americans are conservatives."

But then when they actually go looking for evidence to support Rubio, they find the evidence "liberals may want" to have:

First, he said a majority of Americans are conservatives. In Gallup’s poll, the number has never crossed the 50 percent threshold. Technically, he would be more accurate if he said a plurality of Americans are conservative.

Second, we should note that while more Americans identify as conservative, that has not redounded to the good fortune of the Republican Party.

More Americans than ever identify as political independents, at 40 percent. Republicans don’t even come in at second -- that would be the Democratic Party, claiming the allegiance of 31 percent of Americans. Republicans get third place, with 27 percent claiming the GOP label.

Oh, so you mean liberals who argue that Rubio is wrong, and that he doesn't speak for a majority of Americans have the facts on their side?

But you still rated that factually incorrect statement "mostly true"? Why?

Official like a referee with a whistle.

The rule probably doesn't say anything about where the ball is supposed to land...only that it goes over the bar and between the posts.

Please note I referee soccer, and if this was soccer and anything close to this happened on the field the players would be surrounding me threatening my very life as a form of protest. In Rugby the players come to the official...he calls the captain over...explains and they move on. I've always wanted to referee Rugby because of the gentleman who play that game...sadly in the US it's hardly played.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.
I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.
Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.


No worries, I was being bullheaded while stupidly failing to re-watch the video and confirm what I remembered was really what happened. You should have found my comments baffling and crazed.

I agree with refs having discretion in calling a game loose or tight. I even agree with refs recognizing when they've made a bad call and being tougher on the team that benefited from that for another call later just to keep the calls more even. Reffing is terrifically tough, requiring you to do a job were you will make all manner of mistakes or misses and just need to make the right balance of it all to keep things fair and controlled.

My issue is more with the nature of the rule itself. A rule that makes eye contact with your opponent immediately after dunking on them a potentially game ejecting foul seems way out of proportion.

>> ^bcglorf:

Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.
I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.


Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.

Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.

>> ^curiousity:

@bcglorf
You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.
POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.
PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.
Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.
In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.
VIDEO:
When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.
....
On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.


Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.

I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

@bcglorf

You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.

POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.

PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.

Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.

In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.

VIDEO:

When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.

....

On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
...snip...

Are you trolling me?


?

Do you not agree and understand that contact between players is called as a defensive foul unless the defensive player's feet are planted? That is, if both players are in the air and there is contact, it is ALWAYS a defensive foul. The only possible exception being if the offensive player throws a punch or something else to warrant a flagrant call. Even then though, some very hard elbows and knees in that situation still get called against the defender.

Do you really argue any of that? If you do, then yes I do question if you've ever actually played in a competitive game with actual referees.

We were disagreeing about whether this was offside, not whether or not the goal was valid.

I think referees let players back on the pitch when their momentum takes them out like it did here. Also for returning the ball to play, i.e. throw-ins, corners and goal-kicks. I think that's a rule but it might just be common sense, I don't remember.

Edit - here we go, I assume this is up to date (emphasis mine):
"If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of a playing movement."

Going off the field of play when wrestling with an opponent must be considered accidental or a "playing movement" (which is a great phrase!).

>> ^Quboid:

Yes @Unsung_Hero, but as I also pasted, this only applies "if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" which it does not. I even emphasised it.
I didn't stumble across the rule, I know the rules and I've read the FIFA rules handbook that I posted a section from. The time that matters is when the ball is passed by his team mate, which is never.
He was in an offside position, but that doesn't have any relevance when your team is not in possession.



"However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the fi eld of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play."

With this scenario a teammate doesn't need to have touched the ball. The goal should not have been allowed and the ref SHOULD have cautioned the player, in my opinion. It is up to the ref's consideration as to whether or not the attacker gained an "unfair advantage" from leaving the field and returning. I think it's obvious but I wasn't reffing.

I do apologize for saying you "stumbled" across the FIFA Handbook. I do wish more people would read it.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
I fully understand offsides and both of you along with the ref are wrong on this one. He is in an offside position when he plays the ball and in doing so he gained an advantage. It does not matter if the other team (defender) played the ball or not. Also, Quboid is correct as well for the player leaving the field and entering back again without permission. I know this happens all the time and is never really made an issue.

You are offside the moment your team-mate touches the ball on - this moment didn't occur. The only thing that had occurred in the phase of play that the attacker scores from is for the goalkeeper to put the ball down. It's like when a defender plays a pass-back, if there is an attacker near the goal keeper, in an offside position, they will probably score because at no point did a team mate touch the ball towards them.
Edit - from The Rule Book (emphasis mine):

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

You should really read what you post as a reference more in depth instead of stumbling across part of the rule and pasting it as your argument...
From FIFA:

"“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that
rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside
position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having
been in an offside position"

"It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to step
off the fi eld of play to show the referee that he is not involved in active play.
However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the fi eld of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play."

...Which is exactly what I was saying.