Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XIEhk_TKxG0?start=75" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks flagrant to me. Pushing the kid in mid air by his feet and having him land nearly on his head. Not sure about the original call. I think maybe a slow whistle and you just call the flagrant and move on.

This play must either be ruled a common foul, intentional foul or flagrant foul based on NFHS rules. A technical foul cannot occur due to live ball contact.

Personally this appears flagrant to me. Throwing the player down with that extended arm is unnecessary, excessive and can be perceived as an intent to harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FP.

Maybe ALSO a T for the squaring up that happened after the P (I thought that's what the referee was doing because he signaled block first)

It was going to be nothing, but when he threw up to the ground, he has got to go. I would call that flagrant. That is why you see the entire play.

Peace

And who is the commentator, he clearly does not know rules in question?

Peace

Suppose Defense had LGP. Is this then a charge AND a FP? So, a double foul? ;)

I know your post was somewhat in jest, but while he did have LGP, did he lose it when he extended his arms?

Of course, I have a flagrant on this no matter how we slice it.

I was serious in that I think it's a good exercise in flagrants and double fouls and false double fouls, etc. I just wanted, for this purpose, to take the LGP as a given and not get into a debate over whether it really applies to this play.

Could it theoretically be a Charge followed by a technical since the ball would then be dead?

Not a charge at the NCAA level, because LGP cannot be established in the restricted area. In NFHS, this would initially be a no-call, because neither the defender nor the offensive player are doing anything wrong. However, once the defender flips the offensive player, all bets are off. It would be a flagrant foul (flagrant 2 foul in NCAA) with 2 free throws and possession for Black onot the endline. Flipping a person onto his head is not a basketball play, it is excessive contact, and also violent and unnecessary.

Looking at the replay, the ball has already entered the basket when the black team player throws the white team player over the shoulder. By rule, the ball is dead during this period, so a technical foul for dead-ball intentional or flagrant contact would be the right call to make here.

No. The other player was an airborne shooter. Contact with an airborne shooter, even if the ball is dead, is still a personal foul.

You might want to rethink that statement. When was LGP actually established? Is isn't necessarily when he stops.

Cannot have a T on contact with an airborne shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. Even if this play doesn't end in the flip, I think you have to come out with either a block or a charge.

Additionally for ilyazhito, also keep in mind that it was a primary defender, not a secondary defender.

I could live with an Intentional Foul (F1).

primary vs. secondary
 

I can only speak to NCAA-W rules, but in a fast break situation, all defensive players are initially secondary defenders.

Now, there's certainly interpretation as to when the fast break ends...and when 'initially' no longer applies...

In Men's basketball, it has to be an outnumbered break. This is a one on one matchup.

BTW, if you look at the video this is clearly a high school game. It is a playoff game in California for high school. So all of this is interesting, but not relevant to the actual play. Even the comments say the RA does not come into play because it is a high school game.

Peace

I would still have no call prior to the defender flipping the offensive player, because neither had done anything illegal to that point (offensive player was jumping to shoot, and defensive player backed up to stay in his way/ contest the shot), whether by NCAA or NFHS rules. However, the flip would be a flagrant foul in my book because that is not a basketball play, unnecessary and excessive contact, and could also be classified as severe , because the player flipped is put into a dangerous position and has no control of how he lands. This is just as bad as the play in the Kansas state playoffs this year where one player undercut another player who was airborne attempting a dunk, and caused him to crash into the backboard stanchion. I would be surprised if the officials do not call this action at least an intentional foul, and I would support a flagrant foul called here.

On first watch I had black player with a flagrant for the follow through and slam. Don't know how you only have a common foul. I was also surprised at the low level of T's for the overall chirpiness and crappy player behavior.

How many times in a game can you say "knock it off"?

I Want To Play ...
 

I've decided to play.

Defensive player held legal guarding position. Offensive player didn't charge but jumped over defensive player who then intentionally and 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 get two free throws for the intentional flagrant foul with the lane cleared and his team gets the ball back at spot closest to the foul. Defensive player gets ejected and sits on the bench for the rest of the game.

I agree with bob jenkins, this would have been more interesting, in terms of how to handle it, if there had been a double foul, or false double foul.

Nice video jeremy341a. Thanks.

Good informative situations
 

Getting ready for up coming HS season and lookin at all these situations are a regularity night in and night out ... with that being said... gets my thinking cap going and is why we should always stay focused !! Thanks for your time

?? ;)

Intentional Foul ...
 

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Couldn't flipping an opponent over one's shoulder be considered excessive contact and "not a basketball play", i.e., an intentional foul?

The play in the video looks more like a wrestling play to me. Does anybody have a WWE Rulebook, or a WWE Casebook?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=218&h=164

You can't eject for an intentional foul. Period.

A flagrant foul can be the result of some intentional acts, but that use of "intentional" is different from the use in Intentional foul.

The penalty for a flagrant foul is almost the same as the penalty for an intentional foul, the difference is the player is ejected that committed the foul.

Two FT shots and spot of the foul for the throw-in on a play like this.

Peace

Intentional Flagrant Foul ???
 

100% agree that one can never be ejected for an intentional foul.

Are you saying that one can never have an intentional flagrant foul?

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Or that an intentional foul can never be considered to be flagrant?

In this video, I'm definitely (and immediately) coming in with an intentional foul signal (the X), possibly adding the IAABO-unapproved excessive contact signal (drop both hands), and then definitely adding the IAABO-unapproved "heave ho", or "you're outta here", signal (point to the sky).

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9...=0&w=220&h=166

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

In other words, I'm "upgrading" my intentional foul to a flagrant foul, and calling it an intentional flagrant foul, which as JRutledge pointed out, simply adds the additional penalty of an ejection (to the bench).

Sometimes an excessive contact intentional foul doesn't rise to the violent, or savage level of a flagrant foul, but sometimes it does, as I believe that it does in this specific case, thus the upgrade to intentional flagrant with the added penalty of ejection.

There is no such thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul. A Flagrant Foul is just that, a flagrant act. If that is the case, then you do not need to complicate the issue. Now if it was a technical, then you can have a Flagrant Technical. But that is not enforced the same as a regular flagrant foul. A Flagrant Foul only the fouled player can shoot that unless injured of course. Anyone can shoot a Flagrant Technical Foul. Kind of why the language matters here.

Peace

Separate And Alone ...
 

I'm sure that both you, and bob jenkins, have a good handle on the semantics regarding this topic, or you wouldn't be posting.

I came up with the "intentional flagrant" foul as I was going through the signal sequence that I would make in a game.

This act clearly fits the excessive contact language of an intentional foul, and also clearly fits the violent and savage language of a flagrant foul.

I'm hanging my hat on this definition:

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Please offer a citation that says otherwise.

I do understand that any personal flagrant foul will always involve excessive contact, but not vice versa, all excessive contact will not necessarily be flagrant. Is that what you mean?

Or is it that Rule 4 Definitions lists several different types of fouls and that one can't combine fouls on the list, that they must stand separate and alone? Is that what you mean?

Respectfully, I just (again) went through all the Rule 4 "Foul" definitions and see nothing that prevents us from combining intentional and flagrant. Is your point made somewhere else in the rulebook, or am I (again) missing something in Rule 4?

Please come up with a simple explanation for your point because I would like this to be settled in my mind. Both you, and bob jenkins, can't be wrong.

"Trust, but verify", often attributed to President Ronald Reagan, but is actually a Russian proverb.

Something in the back of my mind told me not to get involved. I should have listened.

But, if I shy away from complex, controversial, situations, I'll never learn.

I guess that I keep thinking about how Jurassic Referee would always ream me out whenever I screwed up. I usually, actually almost always, deserved it.

Agree ...
 

Agree 100%. This was never a problem for me. Never, ever. But a good point for some inexperienced Forum members to remember.

No Harm, No Foul ...
 

What harm could possibly come because a foul is called "intentional flagrant"? Would it really "matter", or is it just a terminology issue?

Would a coach protest that a player shouldn't be ejected because I used the term "intentional"?

Other than the ejection, the penalties are exactly the same. Two shots by fouled player (unless fouled shooting a three pointer that doesn't go in). No players on lane. Offended team gets ball back at spot closest to foul.

Or is it only a problem is one is taking a written test?

And if so, what's the citation that says it's a problem?

Yes.

Or, One Word, One Important Word ...
 

Is this the problem? I found it under Rule10/Fouls/Contact/Penalty.

Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.

Is the problem because it doesn't state "two free throws if intentional and/or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in"?

There is a big, important difference between the word and and the word or. No doubt about it.

If so, you guys are right, but there must be more to it than that?

Always Listen To bob, Even When He's Terse ...
 

And why would you say that?

I want to agree with you, and JRutledge, but I just need a little push.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=255&h=170

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Dueling Citations ...
 

Are these the conflicting citations?

Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Please let there be more to it than that, otherwise I'm going with 4-19-4 over the other one, and yet, I still feel that I'm wrong, and still need that little push.

If I'm presented with this situation on a written test, I want to get it right and be able to offer more of an explanation than, "Because bob jenkins, and JRutledge, and I, said so".

Uppercase, Lowercase ...
 

Please expound upon this (above).

I really want to get this straightened out, even if it's only for a written test, even if it means that I'm wrong, but I need some reasons. And I will except even a minor reason why I'm wrong, as long as it important enough to overturn this language:

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

The word "It" refers to a flagrant foul, so we can reword it to state: "A flagrant foul may or may not be intentional".

Does that mean, "It may or may not be an intentional foul"? That's the question here.

So 4-19-4 contains the word "intentional" and I want to know what "intentional" means to the NFHS. So, like any good official, I look under Rule 4 Definitions and find this definition of "intentional foul":
4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

I realize that "intentional foul" may not be the same as "intentional", but where else will the NFHS tell me what "intentional" means to them? The Funk & Wagnalls definition may not be the same as the NFHS.

How does one know that, in NFHS language, the word "intentional" in "intentional foul" doesn't really mean the same as the word "intentional" by itself? While that may be true, how does one prove that.

I can hang my hat on this: 4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

What do you hang your hat on? This: Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=255&h=170

I want to be convinced. I'm looking forward to it. Please give me that little push. I'm almost there.

Much ado about nothing. If the NFHS rules terminology causes confusion, I would advocate a change to either international practice in referring to deliberate and unsporting fouls as "unsporting" if without an ejection, or "disqualifying" if the offender is ejected, or to NCAA/NBA practice in calling them Flagrant 1/Flagrant 2 fouls, to avoid this issue.

Note: in Europe, where FIBA terminology was developed, a player who has fouled out is "excluded", not disqualified from the game (removed from the game, but not the premises; no additional penalties) as in the States. This is why the FIBA rulebook uses "disqualify" in the sense of "eject" (remove from the game and premises + additional penalties). Therefore, disqualifying foul can be used without confusion if this convention is followed. Otherwise, use unsportIng and ejection foul.

Wouldn't it just be easier if Billy started his own forum?

A William Shakespeare Sighting On The Forum, Is That Cool, Or What ...
 

Yes, but it's still important to get stuff right, even the little stuff.

Debates like this keep us on our toes. Like JRutledge's reminder about who shoots free throws for a flagrant technical foul versus who shoots free throws for a flagrant personal foul, and where the ball is inbounded for each.

And your reminder about what an ejection is for a player versus what an ejection is for an adult coach.

If nothing else of value comes from this thread, than JRutledge's reminder, and your reminder, makes the debate worth it.

The "intentional or not" is about if the actual act is intentional. You are reading waaaayyyyy too much into this. There is not such foul as an Intentional Flagrant Foul. No such animal.

Peace

It would be called, "Twist himself into a pretzel Official's Forum." That is all Billy is doing it arguing with himself about something that no one else is struggling with. ;)

Peace

It's a repetitive theme on EVERY post.

Contribute To This Thread In A Positive Way ...
 

Go to control panel, edit ignore list, and type in my username. I would never do that to anyone, certainly not deecee, but feel free. Or feel free to complain to the moderators, they have the power to do that is right for the Forum.

Or, how's this for an idea, contribute to this thread in a positive way.

Oldest Trick In The Book ...
 

Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it citation or a reference, and make it true.

Just like saying over and over again that the new NFHS backcourt exception made it the same as the NCAA backcourt exception. How did that work out for you?

You are probably right, but prove it. Even it's the old you can't prove a negative trick. Use your intellect. Use your powers of rational reasoning, and persuasion. Get your head in the rulebook. Find some relevant language.

Valid points. And I had my input somewhere out there.

but out of 45 responses you account for 13 right now, and You didn't respond at all through page 1, so in the final 30, 13 are yours. That's 1/3.

In the screen post you are almost at 1/2 of the responses.

I guess it just seems a lot to me and no one else really minds. I'll stop :D.

"I Won't Back Down" (Tom Petty, 1989) …
 

Yeah, the theme that I have an opinion on something, I'm challenged, and I don't back down until proved right, or wrong, and if wrong, I admit that I'm wrong, and that I learned something along the way.

It is my hope that at the end of this thread I will admit that I'm wrong about this topic and I will thank bob jenkins and JRutledge for helping me to learn something that I didn't know before, making me a better official. Isn't that what this Forum is all about.

I didn't back down from the NFHS backcourt exception discussion, and how did that work out for everybody?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it seems oftentimes you are arguing semantics or issues that either never come up or don't really have any bearing on officiating a game.

But if clarity brings you peace then so be it, an you have that right no matter how grumpy I (or anyone else) may be for no other reason that the thread is longer that I think it should be (that's really just in my head :D).

Apologies for the unnecessary negativity.

Except Old School ...
 

Please don't ignore me, and please don't stop criticizing me. Let the moderators do their job. Everyone has something to contribute to the Forum. I'm just a little more stubborn, and obstinate, than most, and I like get closure more than most.

Warning: I retire from my day job on Friday and will have more time to post. Now won't that be a lot of fun? I better buy a backup keyboard in case I wear out the old one.

On Our Toes ... ...
 

True, but see my post to ilyazhito. It's still important to get stuff right, even the little stuff. Debates like this keep us on our toes.

Also, I just gave my opinion on this video play. I believe that it was bob jenkins who questioned my semantics regarding the foul that had the characteristics of being both intentionally and flagrantly committed.

Did I get the call right? Did I get the penalty right? Even if true, it's was still important to bob jenkins, and to JRutledge, and to me, that we correctly identify the type of foul.

If we blame anyone for the length of this thread let's blame jeremy341a, he posted the video. Just kidding. It's a great video. And I agree with bob jenkins that this would be more interesting if the play were a double foul, or a false double foul.

Here is the thing Billy, I said from the beginning what I felt was an opinion based on what it looked like. I also said that the NF needed to clarify that position to make it clear. I never felt that I was totally right or that there was no other explanation for their ruling. But let us be honest, the NF created an exception to something that was not an exception ot the examples they gave. The two plays I showed in the actual NF PowerPoint and in the S&I Book are not a "first touch, last touch" situation. They are a defender hits the ball in the backcourt and then an offensive player touches the ball in the backcourt (in the air apparently). That is why this was a debate in the first place. And it was such a debate that at a meeting I went to there were people thinking that the NCAA Rule was the only logical conclusion and others saying it was not the rule. It was poorly written.

I was also critical of the way the rule was changed without some situations that involved the rule they wrote the exceptions for. Obviously, there was someone on the committee like yourself that was worried about a situation that never happens as you do here and that is why they had to create a silly video that I have yet to see on video anywhere in a real game. At least I had some evidence for my position on the matter. You in this situation are going on and on about something that really no one but you (here) at least seems to be questioning.

Even if we say there is such a thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul, a flagrant foul and an intentional foul have the same exact penalty as it relates to how we put the ball back in play and how many FTs we shoot. We are just ejecting a player on a flagrant foul in high school and doing everything else the same as a regular intentional foul. So I guess if it means that much to you, then go on and on as if no one is here. But there are people here and this is kind of why you get the response by multiple people you do when you literally have had like 4 different posts without much quoting of others with rather long posts. I am not critical of the long posts, but the fact you keep posting pictures, making jokes all over something that no one is even confused by or taking your position.

You go on believing what you want to and the rest of us will do what we understand the rule to be. I do not have to work with you and do not have to prove anything. I literally have had this conversation with others and usually, they are like, "Oh, that makes sense." You are a different animal for some reason. I am good with my position and do not need to contact anyone to even ask them such a silly distinction as I did when we had the debate about the backcourt rule.

Peace

I will say it this way. How many playoff games in your state have you worked? How many State Finals or title games have you worked again?

Maybe someone needs to teach you the "Three-legged stool" of officiating. Rules knowledge is only one part of that stool. BTW, heard that when I started and it came from a man named Tom Quinn who was a Big Ten Football Crew Chief for years and a technical advisor for years after retirement.

Peace

I’ll jump in
 

Billy

The simplest way to look at why there is no intentional flagrant foul is that the definitions don’t have it....

While you are right that the definition of flagrant includes the word intentional look at rule 4 but it is clarifying statement not a definition of another foul..

Each part of section 19 on fouls defines what a foul is... common, personal, flagrant, intentional, technical, multiple, double... etc. no definition for intentional flagrant. ....

For example I’d say a strike, knee, or kick, is an intentional act.... but by definition it’s flagrant.... it also telling you that you could have an unintentional act that is flagrant... by using those phrases we could have an unintentional flagrant foul as well? No it’s flagrant..... if it’s not flagrant then it’s a personal or technical foul of some other nature...

There are 14 fouls defined in the book. By definition a flagrant is a personal or technical foul ... I think everything else is describing what it is..

Additional Descriptors ...
 

Thanks Kevin, you've pushed me close to the edge but not quite over the cliff.

I understand that we can't "willy-nilly" combine these various listed fouls together. Otherwise we could have a personal technical foul.

But we can have a personal flagrant foul, by combining personal and flagrant.

Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptor to the words intentional foul (other than personal or technical)? When we as officials on the floor, decide to upgrade a pushing personal foul to a pushing intentional personal foul that the pushing descriptor goes away, it just becomes a intentional personal foul, not a pushing intentional personal foul?

Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptor to the words flagrant foul (other than personal or technical)? When we as officials on the floor, decide to upgrade an excessive contact intentional personal foul to a excessive contact intentional flagrant personal foul that the excessive contact intentional descriptor goes away, it just becomes a flagrant personal foul, not an excessive contact intentional flagrant personal foul?

Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptors to the words flagrant foul, nor to the words intentional foul (other than personal or technical)?

Are you saying that if the definition doesn't include any sub-varieties of fouls that we should stay away from adding any descriptors?

Intentional fouls only list two sub-varieties, personal, or technical. Flagrant fouls only list two sub-varieties, personal, or technical. Are you saying that the NFHS wants us to only stick to those two sub-varieties for either type?

I feel myself going over the cliff.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this Kelvin green.

Answer my questions in this post, and I'm ready to admit that I was wrong.

What's Wrong With Being A Journeyman Official ...
 

A few (including a single conference final) and none.

I have never questioned your rule knowledge or your ability to officiate the game, only your ability to explain yourself in written form which isn't needed on the basketball court.

Yes, I am a journeyman official, a proud journeyman official, a journeyman official much valued by my assigner, but I know the rules, I know the mechanics, I know how to teach these aspects of the game, I know how to utilize rational, reasonable thinking, and I know how to express myself in written form, having had several articles published in national magazines.

I never realized that one had to have state finals in multiple sports under one's belt to post opinions and try to back them up on the Forum (although having have state finals in multiple sports under one's belt does give one a certain gravitas). I never realized that journeyman officials weren't allowed to post opinions and try to back them up the Forum.

Am I the only Forum member who hasn't worked at least one state final? Am I out of my league? Should I resign from the Forum? Should I give up officiating because I'm "only" a journeyman official? Who's going to officiate those low level varsity games and fill in for those high level varsity games when there's an availability problem for the assigner? Maybe those low level varsity games shouldn't even be played since there aren't enough state final guys to work them? Who really cares about a 2-17 team playing a 4-15 team in a girls varsity game?

No. It means "it may or may not be an intentional act."

It would be easier on us. ;)

Yes. 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.

So, we can have IP or IT. We can have FP or FT. We can have PC_, but not PCT. By definition, it's "called" a Common Personal Foul, but no ever uses the "common" part (except on a test, etc.); there's no "definition" of "common Technical" -- but that's what most of them are (in English usage).

I got tired of reading all this nonsense from Billy so I skipped over the last 17 or 18 posts.

There is a penalty administration for a flagrant foul and there's a penalty administration for an intentional foul. So which one are you choosing if you're going to make up some foul called intentional flagrant foul.

And quit saying the penalties are the same EXCEPT for an ejection. That's a mighty big exception. and is why you confuse yourself and start these nonsense debates.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

For the record, I did not say that because you said anything about my ability. But you act like someone was damaged by the discussion because they had a take on the rule that was yet to be explained. So what happened? Nothing. We had a discussion about a rule that was not explained and it was later explained. And your belt wearing self still needs to realize that nothing you do has changed either. IJS.

Peace

Full Closure ...
 

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.

While we are on a semantics kick
 

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. ....

I Learned Something Today ...
 

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?

When In Rome ...
 

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.

Ejection ...
 

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.

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.

As Rare As Rocking Horse Crap ...
 

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.

Respect My Authority (Cartman, South Park) ...
 

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.

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...

Proper Terminology ...
 

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.

Clarity ...
 

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.

“Never miss a good chance to shut up.” (Will Rogers) ...
 

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

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

Terminology Statements ...
 

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.

No, just saying that if they have been paying attention that information is already in the literature. It is in the new rulebooks and they will get much of this information on many forms.

Yes, it is, but they already have access to that information. Now if someone asks (and they did not) then post away. But I get your need to do things over the top, just saying they already have access to this information. I doubt this is the very first time they have heard this is on this site unless they asked. And almost everyone that commented is not a brand new person to this site.

That is also possible, but it is not those people commenting on your nonsense. IJS.

And they can reread the material they already have. ;)

Peace

Not A Big Emoji Fan ...
 

Again the "Wink" emoji, so I don't really know where you're coming from.

I sounds like your guys already got the new rulebooks in Illinois/Indiana.

If my Connecticut guys don't have the new rulebooks yet, then I'm fairly certain that a few new Forum members, and a few new "lurker" non-Forum members, haven't gotten it yet either.

When I "lurked, and then joined, the Forum, I just jumped in feet first and didn't go back and read any old threads.

And you're right, they all will eventually get the new rulebooks, if they haven't already gotten it. I'm just giving them a head start.

Please note that I added a paragraph after I originally posted about this, editing after you already replied.

Please reread the edited last part of my last post.

If I've taken your post the wrong way, never mind.

Paragraphs. The number one reason somebody will not read a post. I'm sure a lot of folks are like me and see a very long post and just skip over it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Peruse ...
 

No problem here. To each his own.

That's just to let you know that all that writing might be going for naught. You may think going into that much detail and using that many words is attractive to somebody trying to learn, but it's not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

New Rulebooks ...
 

I'm get a sinking feeling in my gut that Connecticut guys may be the last guys to get their new rulebooks.

It's just you Billy. I'm sure you're a very nice guy, but have you every though that we all have limitation?

Repost ...
 

I didn't write the 2018-19 NFHS Point of Emphasis regarding proper terminology. I just reposted it for those new members and new nonmembers who may not have seen it yet. We haven't gotten our new rulebooks yet in Connecticut and I may have been mistaken that some others didn't get their's yet.

If you've already seen the proper terminology list before, on the Forum, or in your new rulebook, then you probably passed on reading the list again, as I did.

If you hadn't seen them before, then you may have read them.

Nice Guys Finish Last ...
 

You have absolutely no way of knowing that, but thanks anyway.

(How do you know that I don't kick my cat, and that I'm not a serial killer.)

Because no serial killer would kick their cat.

Nope. But all the stuff you posted was already on the NF website. It was already on this website. The Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook is out. The Rules by Topic are out as well. Anyone can buy them now, including the rulebooks.

But for the record, we have camps in the late spring, early summer in Illinois. Been talking about the new rules and literature since May. In Indiana, the first meetings we had for basketball were early September. Reading this site for years, it appears that is not too far off from other states as well.

You posted a bunch of stuff that we have already read or that someone can already find on this site alone. So I am not so sure who you are posting this for?

Peace

A Little Less Diligent ...
 

Most Forum members, you, me, lots of others, try to stay on top of things. We all have something in common, a strong interest in fully understanding the rules, or we would never have joined the Forum to begin with. Most of us probably visit the NFHS website. I check it very few days for new 2018-19 Basketball Rules Interpretations.

But there may be a few members, especially some new members, and a few more non-member "lurkers", who may be a little less diligent. It is for those that I re-posted the 2018-19 NFHS Point of Emphasis regarding proper terminology.

Another reason is that I'm not sure that I agree with all of proper terms that the NFHS wants us to use (what is so unprofessional about "working" a game?). I was hoping that the re-post would generate some discussion, but perhaps I should have started a new thread on that topic. I still may, knowing that it will invite some differences of opinion (as we've often seen already on the Forum with endline/baseline).

Or, maybe I'll stay away from controversial topics for a while, giving myself and everybody else, a break.

I retire from my day job as a chemist on Friday. What do I say to hecklers who yell, "Don't quit your day job."?

OK, well let them tell us that themselves. I do not assume everyone is like me or anyone, but "Closed mouths do not get fed." So if there is something they want to know, they can ask.

Peace

Socrates ...
 

Agree, nice quote (actually new to me, thanks), relevant, to the point, spot on, well played, but might I add: "You don't know what you don't know."