View Single Post
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 05, 2008, 07:30pm
btaylor64 btaylor64 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
This is the problem with you working other levels of basketball. You admit that you have only learned a pro philosophy so that is the only way in which you can view plays. Unfortunately, that means that you are getting a number of calls wrong when working at the NCAA or NFHS levels, if you continue to do so. I would ask you to please cease working those levels of play and just focus on the pro games if that is your goal. Those of us who work those games don't need you making incorrect decisions based upon rules and principles from another level of play. It only makes our lives harder and counters all that we do towards educating the fans, coaches, and players at those levels.

I put three specific comments of yours in RED above which are incorrect in either an NCAA or NFHS game.

1. You now know that and openly admit that you judge block/charge by the start of upward movement of the offensive player while the NCAA and NFHS standard is when both feet of the offensive player have left the floor. You say that you would have a block by the favor-the-offense pro-philosophy, but then you actually admit that since you now know the correct criterion for NCAA and NFHS this play could only be considered a charge. So what would you actually call during an NCAA game? If your answer is block for the reason previously stated, then you have no business on a college floor. Unfortunately, the pro game has destroyed the balance between the offense and defense and that makes it far less appealing to watch. Clearly the NBA brass believes that offense sells tickets, but there are many fans that appreciate defense and the pro game consistently over-penalizes and screws the defense.

2. An offensive player tries to jump over and around a defender by flinging his body at an awkward angle and you are going to give him a call because he "goes down really hard and is hurt". Are you serious??? That's an incredibly immature comment. All that it shows is that the official isn't courageous enough to stand the heat of making the proper decision and would rather take the easy way out. Please show me in the rules where injury is the standard by which to judge a foul.

3. For the GT decision whether the ball has struck the board or not means absolutely nothing at the NFHS level and didn't matter for NCAA either until last year. That was a recent change in the college game. Thanks for letting us know your pro view of this play, but please make it clear for other officials reading this forum that you are employing those criteria and not the NFHS rules.
1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender? I just need something to go off of b/c whereas i didn't know about the college rules you don't know about the pro game. Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest. If i was given a legitimate reason why a league or a conference wants something a certain way, ok I'm fine with that but just to tell me to do it a certain way with no explanation, especially when my gut tells me its wrong, I have a problem with that. You're right I am still calling this a block. I am not going to reference the, "you shouldn't be on a college floor then" remark. I've worked my butt off to be there. I attempt to do what my CC says for the night and go on about my business. If he tells me I missed a play and gives me the reason why, I attempt to correct it if I have the play again.

2. I never said if a player slung himself into an opponent I would give him a foul if he went down and was hurt. I stated that there was sufficient enough contact to warrant a whistle and also the fact that he goes down hurt even more makes me have a foul on the play. Onus is on the defender to be legal! if he is not legal the only way i can absolve him from having a foul is if the offensive player does something overt such as lead with a knee or foot, in this case he doesn't do either. Yes the play in question has minimal contact, or at least so it seems, but it is enough that it takes the offensive players hips and legs out from underneath him causing him to not be able to return the floor in a normal position. We cannot choose to ignore illegal contact. Players have to decide outcomes of games through LEGAL actions, not illegal ones which we choose to ignore. if 2 players are on the floor on a drive to the basket 9/10 times someone has committed an illegal act and on that 1/10 times then you have 2 floppers on your hands and you better watch both of them the rest of the night.

3. Ok to make it clear for everyone on the forum I no longer referee NFHS. So my claim on this play is germaine to both leagues.

Also, just to note: If an offensive player was expecting contact and got none, while in the air, and he still wants to fall to the floor to simulate that something happened or he got fouled, he way more often than not is landing with a foot first to soften the blow and in this case he does not as he has no control once he got hip checked.
__________________
"players must decide the outcome of the game with legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."
Reply With Quote