The ball entering the basket and remaining in or passing through the basket ends the try for goal. Since the player was fouled after the shot was successfully completed, the ball would be remain dead (the ball is dead after a player scores and until the ball is at the disposal of a player from the team scored upon for the subsequent throw-in), and the resulting foul would be a technical foul.

Not what you said the first time.

And you won't because he doesn't have an answer.

Shocking.

I must not be able to grasp your point because there isn't one. Or maybe because I don't work as many low-level college games as you.

Oh well. :rolleyes:

I love I do not have a point, but your vast and extensive knowledge is trying to convince me of your point of view I never hear from officials and supervisors that either work that level ever or assign games at that level.

That tells me I will keep doing exactly what I am doing. It must be working.

"Beat the tape." This is my mantra and the thing that keeps me out of trouble.

I had a coach today that wanted me to not to be "sarcastic" with his player after his player asked a question and I explained to the player why a foul was not called. The player did not box out and got out jumped and the little contact that took place he was complaining about a foul that 3 of us passed on. That coach acted like I was being sarcastic when I answered a direct question with a direct answer. Now if I did not answer the question or talk to his player, that would have been a problem too.

Now if this situation took place with this coach I just referenced, I am convinced he would make an issue out of what kind of call you made and what rule you applied as he was making issues out of other things in this game I am mentioning that took place tonight. Maybe where you guys work, no one cares about those things. But where I work, the little things coaches can get a bug up their behind and try to get you to look bad even when you are totally correct. That is why it matters to me if it is clearly a dead ball or just about to be a dead ball. Since we have no monitor, I would not want to give them any ammo. I have been doing college ball long enough to hear the things coaches complain to supervisors about and often they are petty in nature. But hey, I have no point right? :D

Peace

Happened to me once. I said, “Coach, I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was being sardonic.”

It was semantically correct. Better yet, it blew his mind just long enough for me to escape the confrontation unscathed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He probably did not even remember the word you used. :D

Peace

My point has nothing to do with not "beating the tape," but I'm not surprised you are incapable or unwilling to comprehend that. You don't have a valid response to my argument so you bring in stuff that was never the issue to begin with. No one on this thread has suggested that it is not important to "beat the tape"; that is something you made up.

Par for the course, I reckon.

I simply do not agree with your position. It is OK to accept that your position means nothing to me. I do not work for you. I do not have to work with you. I do not have to answer to you (about anything). So if you feel you should call something because in your mind, "They are only worried about the player that is hurt..." BS, then go with that one. I have experienced coaches caring about a lot of things that we think would not be obvious. I am good with my position. You will eventually get over it!!! (Well maybe not)

Peace

Your God complex is showing. :rolleyes:

Another red herring from Rut. Guess I will never learn.

Can someone recap the 2 sides of this debate so I can decide which side I'm on? I've lost track of what this discussion is about.

God complex? :rolleyes::p:)

Did I not say that I work for someone that would not agree with you? If I was God, then why would I not just do whatever the hell I wanted to do regardless of what others say (you are not in that equation BTW)? Yes. I feel that we should do what is expected by the people we work for. Again, you do not work Men's college ball, do you? If I was God I would remember this fact, but I honestly do not care but find it odd that someone that does not even work Men's college ball knows so much about what should be done at a level they do not work.

Do you work for anyone that is a D1 official as your supervisor? Well, I do. Actually, I work for 2 people that fit that description. And that means that they know what having a monitor does to the game and they realize that they have officials that never will get a chance to look at a monitor. That means that you cannot just say, "Well no one will care because...." when the damn play might only be seen clearly with a monitor. Because the only thing that even makes it clear that the ball is live or dead is if you see this on replay. If you see it live, it is very possible that element (very important one) is not clear or even obvious. But hey, you know right. I am saying that this is a tough play and for some reason I have a God complex because I suggest that we go with what we can prove at the time of the play, not on replay. Last time I checked the two people advocating what to do in this situation, do not even work the level they are discussing. Isn't that what you say to a certain person that always has something to say about varsity basketball? Why is this different?

Again, do you even work this level of ball? Because when I am in pre-game meetings with partners that work high levels of ball than me, it is funny how they say the very same things I am saying here. Beat the damn tape. They do not care what just happened to the player, they care about what they can prove.

Peace

OK, as officials, we are supposed to have thick skin, but let's keep the argument civil and focused on the issues. There is enough animosity in the world.

Rich said that he would rule a F2 technical.

I replied and said I would rule a F2 personal since that ball was not entirely through the net, but I acknowledged that it was very close and at the end of the day wouldn't be a huge deal (since the penalty is the same except for potentially the shooter and the throw-in spot).

Rich also acknowledged that it was very close and without a monitor he would understand why officials may error on the personal/technical aspect of this play.

JRut then went on a tangent and said that the ball wasn't even close to being dead and basically implied that it would be the end of the world if you ruled an F2TF on this instead of an F2PF. Said coaches would complain and you have to "beat the tape" which no one disputed, but not really relevant to the discussion. I responded that many officials don't even understand the difference between the two fouls, what makes you think the average coach would know? As long as the player is ejected and the offended team gets two FTs and the ball, no one will lose sleep. He implied that it is worse to rule the ball dead when it is actually live than vice-versa, then when asked to defend his point he didn't. Then he implied I didn't care about "beating the tape" and spilled off his resume, again not even addressing the irrelevance/illogicality of his points.

You work low-level college basketball. I've had a D1 supervisor before as well. You're not special. Get over yourself.