Quote:
Originally posted by Snaqwells
ref18,
If the shooter does it, he's got a shorter shot. Clear advantage. If B5 is standing at the arc with his foot on the line but clearly not engaged in the rebound attempt, there's no advantage. Seriously, tell me how he is advantaged by this.
|
Yes, ref18, I'm talking about a player who is 19'-20' from the basket, not the shooter, not the rebounders. If any of rebounders or shooters are "in the lane", I call it.
Remember, the primary philosophy governing all rules is that each rule has a meaning and intent. Calling everything by the letter of the book beyond the intent is a disservice to game itself.
In my years as a referee, I've been through all parts of this spectrum. I started by being overwhelmed and missing a lot of stuff...games got rough as I didn't call much. As I became more comfortable and studied more, I swung to the opposite side...calling a lot of stuff that didn't really have any bearing...just because I caught it and the rule said so. I could justify everything I called by a rule. I didn't miss much. As I've learned more and observed more, I've pulled back to the middle. I try to make a concious decision on each call (or non-call). I still make some bad decisions and sometimes just miss things. But, the difference now is that I apply the rules to the game with thought rather than like a zombie or an automatic program.
There's no one right balance to be at but being on the extremes where I found myself earlier in my career is not the right place to be.
The purpose of having (at least) 1 defender and 2 offensive players behind the arc is to prevent them from being immediately involved in the rebounding action and, for the defenders, from interfering with the shooter. If by being on the line they've not done either of those things, they've not violated the intent of the rule. If they cross that line by just an inch when the ball hits in an attempt to crash the boards, I'm calling it.
Call the things that need to be called, not the things you can call.