Ding him for sure, but DO NOT reply with a snide comment of your own before you do it. That's the sort of thing that will cause assignors to not give you as many games.

I'm sure Mark Padgett was joking, but still...

Re: My 2 cents...
 

That's <b>your</b> general rule of thumb. Personally,if I can hear a coach say something derogatory,he's getting nailed. Over the line is over the line,no matter what! If you don't nail him,he sureashell is gonna be doing it again. That's <b>my</b> general rule of thumb.

I think you're right, Trigger. (Sheez, I can hear that music in the background...that steel guitar...that crooning voice)

In my experience, a Davism usually only makes matters worse. On rare occasion, it can help, but then a T isn't needed! The only reason for the T is to make the game better, and if a Davism will do the job, great. But that isn't very often.

Mark's bark is worse than his bite. At least, to all the reasonable and calm coaches.

WOOF! WOOF!

Back In The Saddle,
Good post!

For me, the timing of the blockout is a consideration.

Had the shooter landed solidly with balance, I may have no-called.
Had the block occured before the shooter had a chance to land cleanly, I may have called a block and explained to the coach that we officials have been told to follow the shooter to the floor, and that there was too much unecessarily rough contact.

mick

I had a similar one to this
 

On mine the shooter landed and the defense player had a good box out. Then as the shooter was trying to get around him, he kept backing up pushing him about 8-10 feet. I called the foul and the player said something like "What, with my butt?" and I said yes. To me the contact impeded the movement of the offensive player trying to get to a rebounding position.

On the coach's comment, I would have just said "That's enough, coach". That usually lets them know what will happen next and the focus gets back to the present and not the past call.

I have called the same foul when on a rebound one player displaces another. I have also gotten the same response from coaches and players. My reply is "Coach he can box him out, but he can't push him out".

I also know a lot of players are taught to back their opponent out. They are trying to get an,(excuse the phrase)"over the back" call. My wife, the coach, says she will have her players do it until they get called for it.

I have no problem calling it unless it happens too far away from the play to say a player was put at a disadvantage.

If the block occurs while the shooter is still in the air, i.e. airborne shooter, and the shot is missed I have 3 FT's for the shooter...if shot is made then 1 FT of course.
Is this how you call this mick?

RD

RookieDude,
YU.P., if the shooter is still airborne from behind the arc, we can give the shooter 3 chances.
If the shooter had landed, let's give 'im two. :)
mick

my rule of thumb
 

on boxing out: First 1 to 2 feet of displacement is usually a good boxout, next 6 to 8 feet would be a foul. I have explained that very concept to player and coach when asked and have had no argument. Also, I would not tolerate the coach's comment - especially if anyone else overheard. To allow the comment to go by without action would invite further abuse for you, your crew, and for future refs. Cute remarks from a ref often get interpreted as "baiting" from an upset coach. In my mind, if you make cute remarks, it would be unfair to call the "T".

Two FT's if the shot is over? Intentional foul?:confused:

It's the 10th foul.

Doesn't say that anywhere above,does it? Could be 1/1 onF7 to F9.Could be possession before that.

No?

Sorry! M'bad!
My mind had 2 as opposed to three, and I should have said "up to two only".
...But then we all knew that didn't we? :rolleyes:
mick

Not if mick's shooting two, it couldn't. :)