Would you make this call? Why or why not?

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wildcatter

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.

I don't advise newer officials to try passing on violations for game management. It's a rather advanced approach. As Nevada pointed out, the NFHS frowns on it. But as anyone will tell you, in some areas it's just expected as a skill to develop. My advice, unless you're getting evaluators ask you if you really needed to make that travel call, keep doing what you're doing.

[wildcatter]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't advise newer officials to try passing on violations for game management. It's a rather advanced approach. As Nevada pointed out, the NFHS frowns on it. But as anyone will tell you, in some areas it's just expected as a skill to develop. My advice, unless you're getting evaluators ask you if you really needed to make that travel call, keep doing what you're doing.

Appreciate the advice. Thank you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

9.2.2 Situation A

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9.2.2 Situation A

9.2.2 SITUATION A: Thrower A1: (a) causes the ball to carom from the wall
behind him/her, or from the floor out of bounds and then into the court; (b) caroms
the ball from the back of the backboard to a player in the court; or (c) throws
the ball against the side or the front face of the backboard, after which it rebounds
into the hands of A2. RULING: Violation in (a) and (b), since the throw touched
an object out of bounds. The throw-in in (c) is legal. The side and front face of
the backboard are inbounds and, in this specific situation, are treated the same
as the floor inbounds.