The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 11:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches View Post
Jr High games today...Of course I talked with guys I work with about it... And most I have spoke with are in the camp of a little more than incidental.

Have always appreciated the info I gather from this site in the past.
What to worry about -- they don't block out in Jr. High anyway, so this won't come up.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 11:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
What to worry about -- they don't block out in Jr. High anyway, so this won't come up.
Hey now...the girls I coached DID!

Now I'm back to 4th graders (step-daughter is playing) and having to teach it all over! Man, I miss kids with some BBIQ!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 127
When the NFHS implements two throws for all bonus shots, we won't have to see this as frequently.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refhoop View Post
When the NFHS implements two throws for all bonus shots, we won't have to see this as frequently.
FYI, the first shot isn't a bonus, it is just a FT. Only the 2nd shot is the bonus....as a reward for making the first one. When they made it 2 shots on 10 fouls, the 2nd shot was an "automatic" bonus. Many erroneously call it the double bonus, but, technically, that is not accurate.

Of course, despite that, everyone knows what it means and I even use the term because that is the commonly used term for it now, but that still doesn't change the facts of what the words originally meant.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association

Last edited by Camron Rust; Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 03:50pm.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
Our association has instructed us to go with a violation unless the contact is severe enough that we would normally call a foul. IOW, NOT ALL contact is a foul. The stupid thing about this stupid ruling is that you could have a FT with lanes cleared and then adjudicated additional FT's with players on the lane.

I didn't know boxing out the FT shooter was such a rampant issue that the NFHS had to overly complicate this.

Same...if the contact is enough for a foul, call it a foul.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 12:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
FYI, the first shot isn't a bonus, it is just a FTs. Only the 2nd shot is the bonus....as a reward for making the first one. When they made it 2 shots on 10 fouls, the 2nd shot was an "automatic" bonus. Many erroneously call it the double bonus, but, technically, that is not accurate.

Of course, despite that, everyone knows what it means and I even use the term because that is the commonly used term for it now, but that still doesn't change the facts of what the words originally meant.
Thanks for the correction!
Let's still get rid of the "one & one".
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 02:04pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches View Post
Hahah....I guess I could make an argument that it negates advantage of the defense getting body into shooter during flight since shooter can't go until contact. But yeah, I didn't know it was that much of a problem either...
Not only should it not be a problem, anybody employing this tactic is displaying a low basketball IQ. B3 and B4 get to enter the lane long before A1 can enter the lane. They would already be in front of A1, and A1 would be responsible for any illegal contact.

I question the intelligence of any coach who tells his/her players to do this.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 02:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Red Sox Nation
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refhoop View Post
Let's still get rid of the "one & one".
Don't get rid of the "one and one"!! I would hate to see what the signal would be for "bonus"
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 270
It has been suggested to us by our rules guru that should there be contact with the thrower perhaps we should look at it logically. As soon as any part of the defenders body breaks the plane of the FT line a violation has occurred. Unless the contact by the defender is so severe that we would deem it to rise to the level of an intentional foul it is more logical to go with what happened first...the violation. If the throw is missed the thrower gets a replacement throw and if it is made we move on.

Guess how we are going to handle this POE?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by egj13 View Post
Don't get rid of the "one and one"!! I would hate to see what the signal would be for "bonus"
Ohhhh, the fans and any wreck league won't EVER let "AND1" die...every shot there has to be "AND1"
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BatteryPowered View Post
It has been suggested to us by our rules guru that should there be contact with the thrower perhaps we should look at it logically. As soon as any part of the defenders body breaks the plane of the FT line a violation has occurred. Unless the contact by the defender is so severe that we would deem it to rise to the level of an intentional foul it is more logical to go with what happened first...the violation. If the throw is missed the thrower gets a replacement throw and if it is made we move on.

Guess how we are going to handle this POE?
I get the "do what your assigner says" ;logic -- but your "rules guru" could use some help.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 633
At a recent "rules meeting" woman posed an interesting question: "A1 is shooting the 1st FT of a "one plus"; shot goes in and then B1 boxes out/obvious contact to A1 by B1--ostensibly a reflex type of reaction by B1--since the ball became 'dead' after the FT was made and the block out contact was made afterwards--is that a 'dead ball foul', ergo a "technical foul" or is the whole affair just ignored ?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by egj13 View Post
Don't get rid of the "one and one"!! I would hate to see what the signal would be for "bonus"
I think he was suggesting that all fouls be 2 shots (not counting made baskets) and eliminate not the term of "one and one" but the actual situation behind it.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 04:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
At a recent "rules meeting" woman posed an interesting question: "A1 is shooting the 1st FT of a "one plus"; shot goes in and then B1 boxes out/obvious contact to A1 by B1--ostensibly a reflex type of reaction by B1--since the ball became 'dead' after the FT was made and the block out contact was made afterwards--is that a 'dead ball foul', ergo a "technical foul" or is the whole affair just ignored ?
Contact after the ball is dead is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. You have to decide based on what you see.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2015, 04:52pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
At a recent "rules meeting" woman posed an interesting question: "A1 is shooting the 1st FT of a "one plus"; shot goes in and then B1 boxes out/obvious contact to A1 by B1--ostensibly a reflex type of reaction by B1--since the ball became 'dead' after the FT was made and the block out contact was made afterwards--is that a 'dead ball foul', ergo a "technical foul" or is the whole affair just ignored ?
There is no reflexive boxing out that long after the shot has been released. Don't tolerate that garbage in your games.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jab by the defender on the jump shooter (non-contact) FrankHtown Basketball 44 Thu Apr 02, 2009 06:31am
When is hair contact a contact? OmniSpiker Volleyball 6 Tue Nov 04, 2008 06:27pm
Contact with FT shooter texaspaul Basketball 9 Tue Dec 04, 2007 01:17pm
Contact with shooter after release womens_hoops Basketball 9 Mon Jan 10, 2005 02:28pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1