Would you make this call? Why or why not?

[wildcatter]

Originally Posted by Adam

Check local listings to be certain, but many consider "carry", "3 seconds", and maybe a few others in the context of either advantage or egregiousness. If the kid camps in the lane for 10 seconds, get it even if no one is guarding him (although most areas would prefer you try to talk this kid out of the lane first). Some areas, however, want you to call these by the letter. Do what's expected, because you don't want to be the only guy making these calls.

10 second FT violations should be rare. There's a reason it went viral on Youtube when they called it in the NBA. We all count very slow, and still tend to get to 12 or so before we consider calling it. If I ever have to make this call I will, but I'll be the first official I know personally who's ever made it.

As it is, I'm the only one I know who's called the flopping T, so I'm not worried either way.

Thanks

Can I ask what made you call the flopping T? Was it egregious or a player safety issue?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wildcatter

Thanks

Can I ask what made you call the flopping T? Was it egregious or a player safety issue?

It was egregious. 5th or 6th grade YMCA (been a few years).

Player falls back without any contact (plenty of space between him and his opponent). I warn him, warn his coach, and we play on.

Shortly after that, he's preparing to defend the PG who is coming across the division line. Just as the PG gets within closely guarded distance, this kid falls backward and slides about six feet.

I really had no choice at that point.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not picturing this the same way. I think it is possible to do both...roll it and not be touching it when the ball touches inbounds. The player just had to release it 1" off the floor. It may "bounce" a little, but I still consider that a roll because that it what it will be doing almost immediately.

Same here, Cameron. I see this several times a season and the ball almost always starts with at least a bit of a bounce. The one time I did see the ball bounce/roll from OOB across the line into the court I passed on it because the team that did it was down 30 with less than a minute to go and I admired the player's effort to continue to compete even though she and her team had zero chance to win.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not picturing this the same way. I think it is possible to do both...roll it and not be touching it when the ball touches inbounds. The player just had to release it 1" off the floor. It may "bounce" a little, but I still consider that a roll because that it what it will be doing almost immediately.

yeah, I was being a bit technical with that. The 1" off the floor is what we'll normally see.

It's still a dumb way to do it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I would have called this most likely, but I'm open to discussion on it. Assuming there's no pressure, it's not that hard to do this right. In fact, rolling is the least effective means as it forces the dribbler to bend over and pick it up before dribbling.

This way of thinking is dead. Both the NFHS and NCAA killed it several years ago with directives to call throw-in violations even when there is no defensive pressure.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Adam

I would have called this most likely, but I'm open to discussion on it. Assuming there's no pressure, it's not that hard to do this right. In fact, rolling is the least effective means as it forces the dribbler to bend over and pick it up before dribbling.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This way of thinking is dead. Both the NFHS and NCAA killed it several years ago with directives to call throw-in violations even when there is no defensive pressure.

I said I'd call it. How is my way of thinking dead?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'm apparently in the minority here but I don't see myself calling this. The OP says the inbounder was about 30 inches behind the OOB line. Presuming he leans forward to roll the ball, it doesn't necessarily mean he rolled it the entire 2.5 feet.

I just don't see this as an advantage gained not intended by rule though I could be convinced otherwise.

Does anyone have citation for the specific casebook play?

9.2.5 Situation A

Originally Posted by SD Referee

I can't disagree with this. No advantage gained, so if somebody went without the violation, I don't see it as something to get fired up about.

Sorry to Adam. I did misunderstand his post. I should have quoted this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry to Adam. I did misunderstand his post. I should have quoted this one.

I appreciate it, thanks.

[Pantherdreams]

We live in a time when every call we make can be videotaped from a variety of angles and people, then be edited, zoomed, etc as they see fit. This doesn't mean we change the way the game is officiated, but it does mean at any give nmoment a coach, AD, assignor, evaluator etc. Can end up with a look at something you called/didn't call and you are going to need to justify your decision to someone.

Some people are more comfortable justifying or debating. Others want to be as by the book as possible. The when in Rome strategy is also a good one to employ here.

In terms of the OP. If everyone is focused on the end result of play and it might have touched the end line then I'll probably pass for game management reasons. If as the OP implied it spent 20-30 inches movnig out of bounds you have to get this because someone else is and you are going to have a hard time defending that you didn't see it.

In regards to the "rolling" strategy as a whole. We used it a few times back when 'ghettoblasters' were our sound system at games. We specifically rolled it because the coach wanted the defense to come forward to try to touch it as it advnaced beside you up the floor. This way as they reached for the ball the really atheletic skilled player beside it (not me) would try to time their pickup and shot to that reach to garner a foul call on a 3. If defense played it smart then they could pick it up and go with a flat footed defender immediately in front of them.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Gutierrez7

. If an official does not put a whistle on the play, then that official has just favored one team over another.

I think this is a rather ridiculous statement to make. An official, like me, who is unlikely to have a whistle on this play isnt going to have it for either team so its definitely not favoring one team over another.

Originally Posted by wildcatter

Just curious - without going looking for them, I try to call every major violation that I see (e.g. traveling, double dribble, carry, even 10-second FT), and don't even think of advantage/disadvantage (as opposed to fouls). But someone brought it up earlier - are there violations that you sometimes let go?

One of the two main people who trained me, who assigns HS and some college ball, consistently said "don't make violations your best call." Not saying you are doing that at all here but his point was that while you should get all of the obvious violations, your focus should be on having high accuracy with fouls and judgement on contact situations.

For me, there is some advantage/disadvantage and game management consideration to some violations. I'm passing on some carrying violations, non-obvious travels that occur 60 plus feet away from the basket and with no defender present.

As Adam said, check your local listings. My current assigner for most of the HS games I work supports this "philosophy" and believes this is a common sense approach to officiating.

I realize that many will disagree.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9.2.5 Situation A

Thanks. This refers to the defensive pressure consideration.

I'm inquiring about the language on the case play that the OP referenced about the throw-in bouncing out of bound first on a pass.

[BryanV21]

I wouldn't want to win a game thanks to a ticky-tack call like that (again... Not obvious). But maybe that's just me.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BigT]

Originally Posted by wildcatter

I would absolutely call it - if it was clear to me. On violations that tend to be rarer like that one, I'm inclined to be close to 100% sure a) saw it right and b) interpreted the rule correctly (if it's a weird play) before calling it. To be fair, an issue that comes up with this is like what JRut mentioned - sometimes my brain is still processing "WTF" and by the time it registers, it would be a really late whistle (had a weird BC violation similar to a video someone posted about a week ago where I ate my whistle). I chalk some of that up to (my lack of) experience.

Just curious - without going looking for them, I try to call every major violation that I see (e.g. traveling, double dribble, carry, even 10-second FT), and don't even think of advantage/disadvantage (as opposed to fouls). But someone brought it up earlier - are there violations that you sometimes let go?

When a team is getting beat badly their 10 second count is more like 12 seconds because my arm is moving slower then 1 second per swing. If someone has an iffy travel away from the benches and it doesnt get her past the defense I dont like to call that either. Just me but game management seems to be a big deal these days.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigT

When a team is getting beat badly their 10 second count is more like 12 seconds because my arm is moving slower then 1 second per swing. If someone has an iffy travel away from the benches and it doesnt get her past the defense I dont like to call that either. Just me but game management seems to be a big deal these days.

Local expectations will trump NFHS dictates every time.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BigT

When a team is getting beat badly their 10 second count is more like 12 seconds because my arm is moving slower then 1 second per swing.

This can be dangerous. I have seen games where the ref started being "nice" to the losing team, which assisted the team in successfully mounting a comeback.

[wildcatter]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

One of the two main people who trained me, who assigns HS and some college ball, consistently said "don't make violations your best call." Not saying you are doing that at all here but his point was that while you should get all of the obvious violations, your focus should be on having high accuracy with fouls and judgement on contact situations.

For me, there is some advantage/disadvantage and game management consideration to some violations. I'm passing on some carrying violations, non-obvious travels that occur 60 plus feet away from the basket and with no defender present.

As Adam said, check your local listings. My current assigner for most of the HS games I work supports this "philosophy" and believes this is a common sense approach to officiating.

I realize that many will disagree.

Thanks VaTerp. I'm with you on the principle that it's important to get all of the obvious violations. I also want to make sure any violation I call is one I'm very sure of.

So it's an erring-on-the-side-of-slooooow, measured count to 10 on FTs (I've only called one of those, 9-10 years ago when I was in college reffing intramurals). But also, if it's more common violation like a travel or BC, I want to make sure I saw it.

It's a different philosophy than with fouls, particularly on clear PCs/blocks with significant contact. Hopefully I got a great look and know the call is right, but even if I'm not 100%, I'm blowing my whistle to call what I think is best based off what I saw.

The point is, advantage/disadvantage is inherently subjective, and it makes sense that fouls are where you want to focus like the big dog who trained you said.

And this is not really disagreeing with you, but I don't really see passing on a violation as part of game management, like I would on borderline fouls. I call any violation I'm sure I saw, no matter where it is or what the score is. I don't feel like it's in my power to ignore a rule violation. If I see a 3 second call (and I'm sure it's 3+ seconds), I call it (game flow can go both ways). Where trouble starts occurring is when my partner doesn't call it. I know consistency is critical, and it just drives me nuts because the easiest thing from a consistency perspective is to go by one set of policies/rules... the rulebook. But I get it 100% that local listings may vary and I should shut up about it because I am not a big dog. I just moved to a new state anyway, so maybe that philosophy is something I will have to unlearn.