random situations

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I would have to disagree here, it is much better for the game to tell the kid to get on the court then to go through that violation and penalty administration.

Since, in crafting your perception of a "better game", you're taking a "Cafeteria Approach" to which rules you are going to enforce and which you are going to ignore, please list them and leave the list in the locker room so that I know what I'm getting into when I'm doing the next game.

Am I understanding this correctly?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Right, I wasn't on the game but it was a solid 10-15 seconds which seems like forever when you are looking at the kid. Additionally, the situation could most likely be prevented by the official telling the kid "Get on the court"

Are you getting a coaching stipend on the side?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I would have to disagree here, it is much better for the game to tell the kid to get on the court then to go through that violation and penalty administration.

That approach would likely get you blocked as a partner by 95% of the quality officials on this forum.

What a hack..

[sdoebler]

You guys must not have worked games in a long time if you think that calling a T for not getting on the court fast enough is going to put you in a better place with your partners. You have it backwards on who would be blocked when you are constantly nit picking at the rule book when you have options to have better game flow.

List of rules we aren't going to follow, sorry how many times have you administered this rule?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

You guys must not have worked games in a long time if you think that calling a T for not getting on the court fast enough is going to put you in a better place with your partners. You have it backwards on who would be blocked when you are constantly nit picking at the rule book when you have options to have better game flow.

List of rules we aren't going to follow, sorry how many times have you administered this rule?

Each and every time the situation presented itself.
That's called consistency, on both ends of the court and always in accordance with applicable rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

... how many times have you administered this rule?

Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds?

I only had the opportunity once in almost four decades of officiating. It was a middle school game and the inbounder caught me off guard, I hadn't expected him to do delay as long as he did, so I didn't sound my whistle for a technical foul. I think that he was just watching the action, and was not being deceitful, nor did his team gain an advantage, in fact, just the opposite, his team was disadvantaged in a four against five situation. I noted the player's number and the next time we were both in the same situation I reminded him that it would be technical foul if he delayed as he a previously done. Of course he didn't know the rule. I did tell him that I would nail him with a technical the next time he did it. He didn't do it again.

Intent and purpose? Advantage and disadvantage? I lost no sleep over passing on the technical foul.

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason?

Only observed it being called once in almost four decades. Boys varsity game. I'm the lead and an offensive player almost runs into me as he runs out of bounds after using a back door screen. I say to myself, "He can't do that, I'm going to nail him with a violation the next time they run that play". We eventually make our way down to the other end of the court, where a foul is called, so my partner and I switch. Several seconds later where back down the original end of the court, but now I'm the trail and my partner is the lead. The team runs the same play and my partner calls the violation, without any communication between us regarding the call. It was the first time he ever called it, that's how blatant it was. Of course it took a few minutes to explain it to the coach.

[Freddy]

Rule 10-4-2

I was there when this was called. The coach knew why the player T was issued. No problem having it called here.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Rule 10-4-2

I was there when this was called. The coach knew why the player T was issued. No problem having it called here.

1. Not sure why there are two people chopping the clock

2. That player was purposely or deceitfully delaying his return? Matter of judgement obviously

In the end you work for you assignor, I know that my assignors would not like a technical ruled in that situation. Every assignor is different and if that is what your assignor wants issued in that situation well done.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

No problem having it called here.

Nice video Freddy. Thanks.

It's hard to read a player's mind, but I'm not 100% sure that the inbounder purposely or deceitfully delayed his return to the court. I just think that he zoned out for a few seconds. However the inbounding team did gain an advantage as the inbounder's defender never turned around and just stared at the inbounder. Had he turned around, he could have defended the shot. Bottom line, advantage gained, nice call.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

1. Not sure why there are two people chopping the clock

That wasn't at all relevant to the discussion, but if this mechanic is in question . . .

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

1. Not sure why there are two people chopping the clock

And with that you should stop talking and just read.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

You guys must not have worked games in a long time if you think that calling a T for not getting on the court fast enough is going to put you in a better place with your partners. You have it backwards on who would be blocked ...

Agreed.

Obviously the 10-15 seconds of the OP is absurd and an EASY technical, but generally speaking, TONS of teams run inbounds plays on the endline where the inbounder purposely delays and then pops in to receive the return pass. We've all seen it 100s of times.

And as the administering official, you can see it coming a mile away. Your choices are:
1.) Call the rules-based T and then prepare to explain that rule to the coach/player, since fewer than 5 percent of them (and all of the fans … not relevant, but nonetheless) realize this is an illegal tactic.
2.) Say "Come right inbounds" (or something similar) to the inbounder once it's clear that's his plan. I do this all the time. It works 99 out of 100 times and prevents the mess. For the one kid who doesn't listen AND subsequently receives the inbounds pass, you call the T and are also armed with the fact you tried to save him when the coach prepares to rip your head off.

FWIW, I would have no T in the video posted. In my judgment, not purposeful or deceitful, and he never even became part of the play.

I'm with sdoebler on this one. Those who aren't must call a looootttttt of 3-seconds violations in their games.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by ODog

Agreed.

Obviously the 10-15 seconds of the OP is absurd and an EASY technical, but generally speaking, TONS of teams run inbounds plays on the endline where the inbounder purposely delays and then pops in to receive the return pass. We've all seen it 100s of times.

And as the administering official, you can see it coming a mile away. Your choices are:
1.) Call the rules-based T and then prepare to explain that rule to the coach/player, since fewer than 5 percent of them (and all of the fans … not relevant, but nonetheless) realize this is an illegal tactic.
2.) Say "Come right inbounds" (or something similar) to the inbounder once it's clear that's his plan. I do this all the time. It works 99 out of 100 times and prevents the mess. For the one kid who doesn't listen AND subsequently receives the inbounds pass, you call the T and are also armed with the fact you tried to save him when the coach prepares to rip your head off.

FWIW, I would have no T in the video posted. In my judgment, not purposeful or deceitful, and he never even became part of the play.

I'm with sdoebler on this one. Those who aren't must call a looootttttt of 3-seconds violations in their games.

So much over-statement that response is difficult to muster.

Originally Posted by Freddy

Rule 10-4-2

I was there when this was called. The coach knew why the player T was issued. No problem having it called here.

The play in this video is NOT a technical foul and an incorrect call. To all the officials reading this thread, for the love of God do not call this situation a technical foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's hard to read a player's mind, but I'm not 100% sure that the inbounder purposely or deceitfully delayed his return to the court. I just think that he zoned out for a few seconds. However the inbounding team did gain an advantage as the inbounder's defender never turned around and just stared at the inbounder. Had he turned around, he could have defended the shot. Bottom line, advantage gained, nice call.

Originally Posted by AremRed

The play in this video is NOT a technical foul and an incorrect call.

I can live with AremRed's interpretation. He'll get no argument from me.