Womens Question / Adv / Disadv

[Larks]

So I attended a Women's Officiating Clinic last night required to work some local "Christian" ball (NCAA division 9 or something like that. Bottom line...Women's mechanics.)

And..a conversation came up about if there is a collision or if a player goes down...there must be a foul. Even if A1 is dribbling and steps on B1's foot (B1 is in legal guarding position) and A1 goes down they want something called. In this case, a block. The clinician called this a "wrong place, wrong time" foul.

I know when in rome, yadda yadda.

What ever happend to advantage / disadvantage? I understand they want the game called tight but I'd have a hard time penalizing legal defense / bailing a player out.

Old guys....any thoughts?

Do you as an official consider the following to be a truism...

If a player goes down, there must be a foul? I suppose this question could apply to NF or NCAA guys.

Larks
VIT

[nine01c]

I am not THAT old (7 years) but I believe there is such a thing as "incidental contact" (or outright clumsiness) no matter how hard the party(ies) go down. I'm NOT penalizing the defense in your example, no matter what anyone demands of me. If I get "the boot" then so be it, but I will not compromise what I know is the right thing to do.

[David B]

Well I hate to sound too intense, but if you called a foul everytime someone hit the floor in a women's game, you're going to be there all night.

I have seen post players simply trip on their own feet running across the lane, girls falling coming down with a rebound and no on one them, etc., etc.,

I think common sense prevails in these situations.

Thanks
David

Originally posted by Larks
So I attended a Women's Officiating Clinic last night required to work some local "Christian" ball (NCAA division 9 or something like that. Bottom line...Women's mechanics.)

And..a conversation came up about if there is a collision or if a player goes down...there must be a foul. Even if A1 is dribbling and steps on B1's foot (B1 is in legal guarding position) and A1 goes down they want something called. In this case, a block. The clinician called this a "wrong place, wrong time" foul.

I know when in rome, yadda yadda.

What ever happend to advantage / disadvantage? I understand they want the game called tight but I'd have a hard time penalizing legal defense / bailing a player out.

Old guys....any thoughts?

Do you as an official consider the following to be a truism...

If a player goes down, there must be a foul? I suppose this question could apply to NF or NCAA guys.

Larks
VIT

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by Larks
Even if A1 is dribbling and steps on B1's foot (B1 is in legal guarding position) and A1 goes down they want something called. In this case, a block. The clinician called this a "wrong place, wrong time" foul.

Also not that old, but no way there is a foul in this situation. S**t happens. Or, as they say in Christian ball, poop happens.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Larks

And..a conversation came up about if there is a collision or if a player goes down...there must be a foul. Even if A1 is dribbling and steps on B1's foot (B1 is in legal guarding position) and A1 goes down they want something called. In this case, a block. The clinician called this a "wrong place, wrong time" foul.

What ever happend to advantage / disadvantage? I understand they want the game called tight but I'd have a hard time penalizing legal defense / bailing a player out.

I think that you need to find some officials who are already working in this particular league- and have a candid talk with them. Find out how they are actually calling their games, and then try to follow their lead. Another thing that you might try is to check out the schedule for an early season game that's close to you, and then go watch the officials to see what they are calling. I think that what you want to be is consistent with the veterano officials in the league. JMO.

[rpirtle]

Originally posted by Larks
..a conversation came up about if there is a collision or if a player goes down...there must be a foul...

If I have a collision AND a player goes down I will probably call something. Other than that...it depends. Was there contact...how much, what happened, who initiated it,...? Regarding camps: Different evaluators tell us different things. Not all of the advice we get at clinics is valid. However, don't make the mistake of completely discounting the entire message just because you disagree with one part of it. At camp you have to, "Take the best and leave the rest." JMHO

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Larks

And..a conversation came up about if there is a collision or if a player goes down...there must be a foul. Even if A1 is dribbling and steps on B1's foot (B1 is in legal guarding position) and A1 goes down they want something called. In this case, a block. The clinician called this a "wrong place, wrong time" foul.

Larks,
As I wrote in another thread, only women's ball is called this way, and I believe that it is wrong.
What this clinician said is in direct conflict with 10.6.1 Situation E, which tells us that every player is entitled to a position on the court even if it is while lying on the floor, and if another player trips over this player "no infraction or foul has occurred and play continues."
I know that I am quoting the NFHS book, but maybe there is something similiar in the NCAA manual.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Larks,
As I wrote in another thread, only women's ball is called this way

nope

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

nope

Dan -- for the edification of us tyros who aren't quite as sophisticated as you, would you care to elucidate?

[Nevadaref]

I believe Dan is saying that he knows of men's instructors who tell the officials to call it this way. I don't.

And Juulie, you have used the word edification twice recently, and I must admit I had to look it up because knowing the meaning of edifice I was puzzled by the context in which you used it. It does seem funny that edification doesn't mean something like to make into a large building. Maybe the words are connected because one's self is being built up by the instructor.
Your diction is outstanding! If you ever write a book, I'll buy it.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Nov 1st, 2003 at 01:22 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I believe Dan is saying that he knows of men's instructors who tell the officials to call it this way. I don't.

And Juulie, you have used the word edification twice recently, and I must admit I had to look it up because knowing the meaning of edifice I was puzzled by the context in which you used it. It does seem funny that edification doesn't mean something like to make into a large building. Maybe the words are connected because one's self is being built up by the instructor.
Your diction is outstanding! If you ever write a book, I'll buy it.

It comes from being raised in a long line of Quakers, who firmly believed in education for women, and in my family lived it out in the formal study of English language and literature. My grandmother and I. M. Shirley Wright took classes together, although Ms. Wright was not a Quaker.

Edification is a word used a lot in Quaker circles, and it does indeed mean something along the lines of "being built up". However, I would say it is the words and concepts themselves that are the building elements, not the instructor. If Dan expounds his principles, and if they are sound teachings, it is the concepts themselves, not Dan, by which we are edified. In other words, it isn't Dan that's the point, it's the ideas. Which is why I used that particular word -- I wanted to see what concepts he was trying to propound, not his own personal opinion, on which I need no clarification!

PS I do, in fact, have two books in the hopper, and I'm holding you to your commitment, if and when they are ever published.

[Edited by rainmaker on Nov 1st, 2003 at 01:35 PM]

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Larks

And..a conversation came up about if there is a collision or if a player goes down...there must be a foul.

What ever happend to advantage / disadvantage? I understand they want the game called tight but I'd have a hard time penalizing legal defense / bailing a player out.

Old guys....any thoughts?

Do you as an official consider the following to be a truism...

If a player goes down, there must be a foul? I suppose this question could apply to NF or NCAA guys.

Larks
VIT

I'm not sure I qualify as old either, but here are my thoughts...first: read the NCAA Manual for Women's crew of three, page 5...it talks about a philosophy of officiating, and points out that one of the keys to the game (and one of the major problems I see in Men's ball) is freedom of movement - both for offense and defense...collisions and players hitting the floor are indications that freedom of movement is not taking place and we need to address that...

Also, and I know this is a generalization but...in Men's ball, if there is a collision and several players end up on the floor, there might be some woofing and chest-thumping right then, but then it is usually forgotten...in Women's ball, nothing is forgotten or forgiven...so that collision 5 min. into the game with no whistle can come back to haunt you with 2 min. to go in the game when some player decides to retaliate...it's the 5 min later principle - in other words, if I do/don't make this call, what effect will that have on the game 5 min. down the road?

In the situation you mentioned, when A1 steps on B1's foot, we have to decide (instantly) whether to call travelling on A1 or block on B1...best bet will usually be the block (as far as supervisors go)...that of course depends on A1 losing control when they go down...

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker


Dan -- for the edification of us tyros...would you care to elucidate?

There are mens assignors/supervisors/observers who feel that if a player with the ball & in control of himself goes down in this situation there needs to be a foul called. There are mens coaches who agree strongly with this. There are mens officials who agree with this and call their games using this idea. It has been my experience that the reaction to a foul in this situation is a grunt and a shrug. The reaction to a no-call in this situation is a coach on his feet with his arms in the air.

Tyro...good word.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

There are mens assignors/supervisors/observers who feel that if a player with the ball & in control of himself goes down in this situation there needs to be a foul called. There are mens coaches who agree strongly with this. There are mens officials who agree with this and call their games using this idea. It has been my experience that the reaction to a foul in this situation is a grunt and a shrug. The reaction to a no-call in this situation is a coach on his feet with his arms in the air.

[/B][/QUOTE]There are cranky old officials that totally agree with this. There are also cranky old officials that say "but....best find out how the league you are doing wants it called- and then call it that way".

[Larks]

Excellent feedback everyone.

Thanks