Found this Gem 3 seconds

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rich

I wouldn't even have started such a count in this scenario. Can anyone here on the forum honestly say they would? A 3-second violation wouldn't even have entered my mind at this point.

I have not called a three seconds violation in 50 years and I stated officiating in 1971.

MTD, Sr.

[BryanV21]

Unless an offensive player is in the lane and there's nothing going on anywhere near him, and there's nothing else for me to monitor, a three-second violation never comes to mind.

[Raymond]

Had two 3-second violations in my last college game. One of them was a double whistle.

They do occur.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Had two 3-second violations in my last college game. One of them was a double whistle.



They do occur.

I've called two this season myself. They tend to call themselves.

[so cal lurker]

My son played in a tournament last week with similar timing issues. (IMHO, the two man team was out of its depth, at least trying to do the game two-man.). But in addition to a few three second calls (at least one was very quick following a shot), we were graced with a 10 second backcourt call (while the shot clock only showed 9 seconds had run), a five second closely-guarded call when no one else in the gym thought the casual dribbler was being closely guarded by the leisurely defender, and the first time I've ever seen a 10 second call on a FT in a high school game (I wasn't counting, but it seemed quick to me, and was whistled as the ball left the shooters hand). At least they were consistent with quick counts....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

... the first time I've ever seen a 10 second call on a FT in a high school game

So it does exist. I thought that this was a myth, or a hoax.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

My son played in a tournament last week with similar timing issues. (IMHO, the two man team was out of its depth, at least trying to do the game two-man.). But in addition to a few three second calls (at least one was very quick following a shot), we were graced with a 10 second backcourt call (while the shot clock only showed 9 seconds had run), a five second closely-guarded call when no one else in the gym thought the casual dribbler was being closely guarded by the leisurely defender, and the first time I've ever seen a 10 second call on a FT in a high school game (I wasn't counting, but it seemed quick to me, and was whistled as the ball left the shooters hand). At least they were consistent with quick counts....

Probably a new official/crew as you stated. In my first couple of years, I was "that official" who would look for calls like this, almost as if to demonstrate that I knew a bunch of rules.

Over time I learned how to put rules in context. If there's a rare or unusual violation to call, it finds me. I don't go looking for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ODog]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

... we were graced with a 10 second backcourt call (while the shot clock only showed 9 seconds had run) ...

Not speaking to your instance in particular, but unless the shot-clock operator is amazing (and at the HS level or below, that's a toss up at best, getting worse as the level drops), you cannot use the shot clock as any sort of barometer for a 10-second call, nor should you.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

... we were graced with ... a five second closely-guarded call when no one else in the gym thought the casual dribbler was being closely guarded by the leisurely defender ...

Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.

Something else that's never relevant: What "everyone else in the gym" thinks. This is probably why more and more coaches, fans and parents are reportedly losing their minds on a regular basis. Because their views on all calls/non-calls are always irrelevant, more often than not invalid and absolutely never taken into consideration.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by ODog

Not speaking to your instance in particular, but unless the shot-clock operator is amazing (and at the HS level or below, that's a toss up at best, getting worse as the level drops), you cannot use the shot clock as any sort of barometer for a 10-second call, nor should you.

I'd fix the shot clock well before calling a 10 second violation. No way I'm going to have a situation where the shot clock only shows 9 seconds have come off and I'm calling a violation.

If I'm at 2 on my count in the back court and the shot clock hasn't been reset, I'm stopping the game and having them fix it.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by ODog

Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.

Something else that's never relevant: What "everyone else in the gym" thinks. This is probably why more and more coaches, fans and parents are reportedly losing their minds on a regular basis. Because their views on all calls/non-calls are always irrelevant, more often than not invalid and absolutely never taken into consideration.

I agree 100% with that though, and understand what you're saying about the shot clock issue, too. But if I'm working a game with a shot clock, I'm going to make sure it is working properly and the operator is consistent.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

I agree 100% with that though, and understand what you're saying about the shot clock issue, too. But if I'm working a game with a shot clock, I'm going to make sure it is working properly and the operator is consistent.

Of course. We're in agreement on all fronts. And I'm also agreeing with the speculation that the officials in So Cal's post likely were inexperienced and/or trigger happy.

But his post seems to come from a fan's perspective, with a fan's concept of the rules, so it's only fair someone stands up for these boor bastards () and plays devil's advocate.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by ODog

Of course. We're in agreement on all fronts. And I'm also agreeing with the speculation that the officials in So Cal's post likely were inexperienced and/or trigger happy.

But his post seems to come from a fan's perspective, with a fan's concept of the rules, so it's only fair someone stands up for these boor bastards () and plays devil's advocate.

Yes, thank god cell phones didn't capture video when I was starting out... everybody has to start somewhere...

[Rob1968]

[QUOTE=ODog;996006]Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.


Are we sure about this? It is called "closely guarded" and not "closely located." I seem to recall a Case Book play that addresses this, unfortunately, I'm at a New Years Party, and don't have my books.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=Rob1968;996012]

Originally Posted by ODog

Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.


Are we sure about this? It is called "closely guarded" and not "closely located." I seem to recall a Case Book play that addresses this, unfortunately, I'm at a New Years Party, and don't have my books.

SITUATION 12: A1 is holding the ball in her/his frontcourt. B1 moves to within 6 feet and stands and faces A1. The official does not apply the closely guarded rule because B1 is not playing aggressively. RULING: The official is incorrectly applying the closely guarded rule. The amount of movement or the actual body movement of B1 is irrelevant. (Rule 4-10)