Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

All fouls are either personal or technical. They also can have additional descriptors -- some of which apply to both; some of which by definition apply only to one; some of which are listed as applying to one.

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is a penalty administration for a flagrant foul and there's a penalty administration for an intentional foul.

bob jenkins provides a great followup to the post by Kelvin green. Each type of foul has descriptors listed and only those descriptors can be used, no others.

Raymond provides another piece of the puzzle, two distinctly different penalties (this was the final push over the cliff and it was a mighty big push, no question in my mind after this that I was 100% wrong).

Thanks to bob jenkins, and JRutledge, for calling me out on my rule language.

Thanks to Kelvin green, bob jenkins, and Raymond, for providing great explanations of why I was wrong.

I was wrong. Here's what I should have posted:

Defensive player held legal guarding position. Offensive player didn't charge but jumped over defensive player who then flagrantly fouled the offensive airborne shooter who was still in the act of shooting (hadn't returned to the floor yet) before the ball went in the basket. No technical foul because the ball hadn't yet gone in the basket, and the airborne shooter hadn't returned to the floor, so it was a live ball foul.

Count the basket. Offensive player gets two free throws for the flagrant personal foul with the lane cleared and his team gets the ball back at spot closest to the foul. Defensive player gets disqualified and sits on the bench for the rest of the game.

[Kelvin green]

Don’t use the term ejected for a player. The term ejection is only used twice and always used with a coach/adult.

Players are disqualified. Ejection means leaving the gym. We don’t do that with the kids. ....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... and start these nonsense debates.

I didn't start this "verbiage" debate. I just made a mistake in how I worded my opinion on the video play. bob jenkins questioned my "verbiage", not my call, but he also helped to end the debate. I was certainly guilty of keeping the debate going until three Forum members made the effort, and took the time, to give a rational explanation for why I was wrong, and close the issue for good.

I learned something today. Some other inexperienced Forum members, or lurkers, may have also been reminded about the difference between the penalty for a personal flagrant foul and the penalty for a technical flagrant foul. Or the difference between the penalty for a flagrant foul and an intentional foul. And the difference between an adult ejection and a player "ejection". What's wrong with that?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... your belt wearing self ...

If I move to Illinois, or Indiana, or practically anywhere else, I will certainly be sure to leave my black belt behind in this little corner of Connecticut, because one of the most important things that I've learned on the Forum is, "When Rome, do as the Romans do".

Note: We had a guy work a state final this past season who wore a black belt in the final. He was the only official who wore a black belt in a final game. I also observed a great rookie official (who just passed the test) wearing a black belt and I advised him to get rid of the belt. Wearing a black belt is so mid-twentieth century, as am I.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Don’t use the term ejected for a player.

Good point. I knew that, but was careless in my language.

Maybe because my state interscholastic sports governing body has us fill out "Ejection Reports", but not for all disqualified players, just the ones that are disqualified for being "ejected", one flagrant (personal or technical), or two non-flagrant technical. The state probably uses the term "ejection" to differentiate those disqualified players that require an "Ejection Report", from those who are simply disqualified with five personal, or four personal fouls and one technical foul.

Of course, ejected adult coaches have to sit on the cold bus in the parking lot. And I have to fill out an "Ejection Report", but I get to do it in my nice warm office at home, and only if I was the referee. If the umpire gives the coach the "heave ho", or the "you're outta here" signal, it's still the referee who does all the paperwork.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Don’t use the term ejected for a player. The term ejection is only used twice and always used with a coach/adult.

Players are disqualified. Ejection means leaving the gym. We don’t do that with the kids. ....

With all due respect Kelvin, you are wrong. Although players are not removed from the gym for flagrant fouls or multiple technical fouls in NFHS rules, because they are minors and require supervision (coaches are asults), their actions might merit additional penalties from their state office. In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult, so disqualification or ejection is not just merely about semantics. The distinction between removal alone and removal + discipline is enough to make a discussion about ejection vs disqualification relevant.

Returning to the OP, I agree with BillyMac's judgement of the situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

With all due respect Kelvin, you are wrong. Although players are not removed from the gym for flagrant fouls or multiple technical fouls in NFHS rules, because they are minors and require supervision (coaches are asults), their actions might merit additional penalties from their state office. In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult, so disqualification or ejection is not just merely about semantics. The distinction between removal alone and removal + discipline is enough to make a discussion about ejection vs disqualification relevant.

Returning to the OP, I agree with BillyMac's judgement of the situation.

No one cares about the penalties from the state office. They have absolutely nothing to do with what we call and administer.

The only place you'll find what you just posted is in the MSU rulebook.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult ...

Very, very rare, never charged it, never observed it.

However, in an unusual situation, an official has the authority to require
that these individuals who have committed a flagrant technical foul must leave the
vicinity of the court. This action is necessary when permitting such offenders to
remain at courtside would tend to incite the crowd, to incite the opponents, or to
subject the officials, opponents or others administering the game, to unsporting
harassment. In such circumstances, the official should require the individual who
has committed a flagrant foul to leave the vicinity of the court with an adult supervisor.
It must be emphasized that an official does have this authority, when the
circumstances resulting from any flagrant foul warrant it.

Kelvin green's math is 100% correct. I did a word search of the NFHS rulebook, and with the exception above, every single reference to "ejection" is in regard to adult personnel.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No one cares about the penalties from the state office. They have absolutely nothing to do with what we call and administer.

It's very minor, and insignificant, but there is a NFHS 2-2-Note reminding officials about their clerical authority over the contest through the completion of any reports regarding disqualifications. I had almost completely forgotten about this fairly recent addition to the NFHS rulebook until Camron Rust's post. Of course the implementation of this "rule" will vary state by state, and in some cases may not even exist. Some of our local guys had to be reminded that if the fifth personal foul is also the second technical foul that a state report still has to be filled out, even if one of the technical, or both technicals, is for a non-unsporting act (grasp basket, delay coming back inbounds, change uniform number, pregame dunk, etc.). The state decides what further discipline will be extended, not the officials, nor is it our job to see that game suspensions are enforced, that's also on the state. We just report what happened, the state makes decisions regarding punishment, and enforcement.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

With all due respect Kelvin, you are wrong. Although players are not removed from the gym for flagrant fouls or multiple technical fouls in NFHS rules, because they are minors and require supervision (coaches are asults), their actions might merit additional penalties from their state office. In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult, so disqualification or ejection is not just merely about semantics. The distinction between removal alone and removal + discipline is enough to make a discussion about ejection vs disqualification relevant.

Returning to the OP, I agree with BillyMac's judgement of the situation.

Wrong how? Show me in the rule book where a high school player is ejected? the NFHS Book does not use the term ejection for a player... it does for an adult.

Here’s the deal... we must be precise in our terms. We had this long discussion that boiled down to definitions.

How many of us feel like fingernails on the chalk board if we hear an official use “over the back?” The more we use the precise term, the more we are likely to get it right...but hey that’s me...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

... we must be precise in our terms. The more we use the precise term, the more we are likely to get it right...but hey that’s me...

You, and the NFHS.

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2018-19

OFFICIATING PROFESSIONALISM AND USE OF PROPER TERMINOLOGY

The final point of emphasis by the committee deals with professionalism by officials. In an era where officials are more needed than ever, it is important that officials maintain professionalism that leaves no one questioning their motivations. Key in this professionalism is the use of proper terminology. In an era of round-the-clock commentators using today’s latest lingo to describe game situations to entertain, officials cannot be caught up in that shift to less than professional terminology. A few examples of using the proper terminology include:

• Backboard (NOT Glass)
• Division Line (NOT Center, Mid-Court, or Time Line)
• End Line (NOT Baseline)
• Fumble (NOT a Muff)
• Goal (NOT Basket)
• Grant Time-Out (NOT Call Time-Out)
• Held Ball (NOT Jump Ball)
• Obtain (NOT establish)
• Officiate Game (NOT Call, Control, Manage, Ref, Work; Officials Officiate the Game)
• Request Time-Out (NOT Call Time-Out)
• Ring (NOT Rim)
• Screen (NOT Pick)
• 60-Second Time-Out (NOT Full Time-Out)
• Traveling (NOT Walk)

The use of proper terminology is one of many steps to ensure that the perception of game officials and the reality of their actions, remains on a higher plane and a critical part of the game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

... we must be precise in our terms. We had this long discussion that boiled down to definitions.

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

the more we are likely to get it right...

As the guy who ended up on the buttered side of that toast that hit the floor, I agree. I kept looking for clarity and closure, and finally three Forum members came to my rescue, including Kelvin green. Why didn't I just give up, and bail out of that long discussion? Because I wanted to get it right.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

How many of us feel like fingernails on the chalk board if we hear an official use “over the back?”

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

Calvin Coolidge once said, "The things I did not say never hurt me." Of course, he was not talking about basketball, but many officials would be smart to heed his sage advice as they communicate with coaches, and players.

Good communication skills are important tools to have on any official’s tool belt. Good communication with a partner, with a player, or with a coach, can go a long way to maintaining control of the game, having good game management, and having a smooth game. Sometimes this communication takes place in oral form, talking to players, or coaches, in some cases to explain a ruling, or in other cases to prevent a violation, or a foul. However, probably for reasons of tradition, there have been things that officials often, or sometimes, say during a game that do not have any basis in the rules, and should probably not be said in a game. This article will cover some of those “best left unsaid” statements.

“He wasn’t set”, is often an official’s answer to a coach who is questioning a blocking foul on his player. This implies that a defensive player must be set, and can’t move, to take a charge, while, in reality, the rules say otherwise. A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he, or she, has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards, or sideways, to maintain a legal guarding position, and may even have one, or both feet, off the floor when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. However, if the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which, in this case, is a blocking foul.

"On the floor”, sometimes stated by officials for fouls against players who are not in the act of shooting, is also not rule based. This implies that a player cannot be on the floor, and shooting, at the same time, when in reality the old fashioned set shot, still used by some three point shooters, is a classic example of a player, on the floor, who is also in the act of shooting. Better statement: “No shot”.

"Don't move”, said to an inbounding player, by an official, before a designated spot throw-in, is another statement that should probably go unsaid. According to the rules, that player can move laterally within a three foot wide area, can jump up, and can move as far back as time, and space, will allow. Better statement: “Designated spot”, while pointing to the spot.

"Hold your spots", said by the referee, or tosser, before the jump ball, is only rule based for some of the players. One exception to this rule, and there are others, is that players on the jump ball circle can move off the jump ball circle at any time: before the toss, during the toss, or after the toss.

"You can't stand behind him”, stated by the referee, or the umpire, before a jump ball, to a player who is directly behind an opponent, both whom are ten feet off the jump ball circle, is not rule based. The rule that players can’t stand behind, within three feet, of an opponent, only applies to players on, and within three feet of, the jump ball circle. Players farther back than that can stand wherever they want, as long as they get to that spot first.

"Everybody get behind the division line”, often said by an official before free throws for a technical foul, or an intentional foul, is also not rule based. According to the rule, the nine non-shooters shall remain behind the free throw line extended, and behind the three point arc, and do not have to stay behind the division line. In some cases, this may allow players to legally converse with their coaches.

"Over the back", reported by an official to the table on a rebounding foul, is, in reality, probably a pushing foul. Over the back is not necessarily a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called, and this should be reported to the table as such.

"Reaching in", reported by an official to the table on a foul against a ball handler, is not necessarily a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in, is by itself, nothing. If illegal contact does occur, it’s probably a holding foul, an illegal use of hands foul, or a hand check foul, and these should be reported to the table as such.

"Coach, you have one timeout left", is a courtesy often extended by officials to coaches, when, by rule, officials should only be notifying head coaches when their team has been granted its final allowable timeout. If there is any miscommunication, or mistake, involving the table crew reporting remaining timeouts, then the officials, by rule, need to stay out of the conversation. Let the coaches, and table crew, communicate about remaining timeouts, other than when a team has been granted its final allowable timeout, which by rule, is required to be reported to the coach by the officials.

"Sit down", is occasionally stated by an official to a coach who is acting in an unsporting way, but who has not yet been charged with a technical foul, is not rule based. Back in the “olden days” of the “seatbelt rule”, this was a common method of dealing with coaches who have gone, or who are about to go, “over the line”. Now, with the coaching box, officials can only tell coaches to sit down after they have been charged with a direct technical foul, or an indirect technical foul, and even then, there are still a few occasions when these coaches can still legally stand up.

"You have to take out your earrings”, is occasionally stated by officials to players in the pregame layup lines who are wearing earrings. It’s only a minor difference in semantics, but it’s probably better, for legal liability reasons, to instead say, "You can't play, or even warm up, wearing earrings". This puts the decision, to remove the earrings, or not to remove the earrings, on the player, or the coach, and possibly, on the parent, and takes any legal liability off the official’s shoulders.

Finally, a thought by Will Rogers, “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”

3/8/14

[JRutledge]

I think most of us by now have seen the terminology statements from the NF. We do not need the entire thing posted again when no one asked.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think most of us by now have seen the terminology statements from the NF. We do not need the entire thing posted again when no one asked.

And so you assume that every single Forum member is a veteran Forum member that has "read it all"?

No possibility that some Forum members are brand new and have only read recent posts?

No possibility that the Forum has some brand new "lurker" nonmembers (readers but not posters) who have only read recent posts?

No thought that repetition is often one of the best pedagogical approaches to teach something, and often the best way for many to learn something (I consider the Forum to be, at least partly, about learning how to be a better basketball official)?

My local board won't have it's first meeting, at which time we go over the rule changes, and Points of Emphasis, until mid-October. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of my guys have no idea about any of the NFHS 2018-19 rule changes, nor do they know anything about the 2018 Points of Emphasis, including the use of proper terminology, so I'm also willing to bet that some of the new Forum members, or the new "lurking" Forum nonmembers, may also not have heard of these topics.

Or did I not understand the "Wink" emoji (I don't do a lot of texting, so I'm not a big emoji user) to mean that your just "yanking my chain", in which case, never mind.

If that's the case, I should understand "chain yanking" because our local guys spend a lot of time doing such. I spend a lot to time in March observing and supporting our best guys working deep into the state tournament, often traveling many miles across the state, well outside my normal geographic area. Every single time, I walk up to them during pregame warmups and say, "Hi guys. I drove all the way across the state to see great officials working, and I get stuck watching you knuckleheads." They always get a laugh out of my greeting, often agreeing with me.