Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
And I don't give a crap about "baseline" or "call timeout", but "on the floor" perpetuates a myth just like calling "over the back" or "reach" or signaling a travel when a thrower leaves his three foot spot.
|
What myth?
A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.
I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.
I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?
The second I go out and sell the call as 'on the floor' I have now told the coaches, teams and crowd that there was no shot, the ball was dead two steps before A put the ball up, and the basket doesn't count. To say there is something wrong with that I just can't understand. Using those words are just part of the way to sell the call, along with proper signals to make sure it's clear.
Yes, the words have to be used carefully, and I understand they can be misused by officials who should call the 2 shot foul instead of the common foul on the floor. But again, I state my point, this is another case where we are being forced into a one size fits all way to officiate, and it is not a good thing.
How many times have seen over the years where rule, interp, or mechanic Z is taught as being the best way to do things, then six months later the opposite is now considered to be the best way to do things?
All that matters as an official is to get the call right, referee the players, and give both sides an equal chance to win the game. How you do that is not a "one size fits all" proposition.
Now I'll just go back to lurking.