The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   What do you think is the dumbest rule? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/11361-what-do-you-think-dumbest-rule.html)

TXMATTHEW05 Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:28pm

Hello, all. I was wondering, what do you think the dumbest rule in basketball is?

First, administrative technicals for something like the starters not being marked. I can understand incorrect numbers and such (even though most would agree that 99% of the time it's just error, not deceiet). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what difference it makes. When I do the books, I don't even mark who goes in afterwards, because that sort of information is irrelevant, really. The only purpose I can see would be to confirm that the number is in the book, but I double check during the pre-game. I just don't get it. It's a dumb rule.

What do you all think?

TriggerMN Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:23am

The rule that says some guys get to travel in the NBA and some guys don't. Oh wait, that's not actually a rule? Coulda fooled me...

rainmaker Tue Dec 23, 2003 08:28am

Quote:

Originally posted by TXMATTHEW05
Hello, all. I was wondering, what do you think the dumbest rule in basketball is?

First, administrative technicals for something like the starters not being marked. I can understand incorrect numbers and such (even though most would agree that 99% of the time it's just error, not deceiet).... I just don't get it. It's a dumb rule.

Matthew, every rule was written to solve some problem for someone somewhere. I can't for the life of me figure out what problem this solves, but then it really doesn't hurt any one, either, does it? I mean, have you ever seen anyone called for it?

The one I wonder about it the T for punching the ball with a fist. But then, that never gets called either.

Nick_O Tue Dec 23, 2003 08:55am

basket Interference
 
I would like to see hitting the backboard (in a failed attempt to block a shot) added as basket interference -- the basket most certainly shakes and possibly impacts the ball going in or not.

ChuckElias Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:34am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
The one I wonder about it the T for punching the ball with a fist. But then, that never gets called either.
I think this is just a violation now, although I saw it called as a T back in '91 (the only year I was a coach).

Ref Daddy Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:27am


Worst rule: Alternate Possession.

I was told it was added because most Referee's cannot throw a strait jump ball. Heck thats the easiest thing to do!

Mark Padgett Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:46am

The dumbest rule is the one that says the team with the most points wins the game. Everyone knows that the team with the best looking cheerleading babes (18 or older, natch) should be declared the winner. ;)

canuckrefguy Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:51am

Quote:

Originally posted by Ref Daddy

Worst rule: Alternate Possession.

I was told it was added because most Referee's cannot throw a strait jump ball. Heck thats the easiest thing to do!

Uh huh....done any girls ball lately?

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmili...py/roflmao.gif

[Edited by canuckrefguy on Dec 23rd, 2003 at 10:56 AM]

ref18 Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:12pm

Do you know how long a game would last if at every jump ball situation, we had to line everyone up and throw up the ball. I heard that FIBA might be going to the arrow in the next set of rule changes.

rainmaker Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
The one I wonder about it the T for punching the ball with a fist. But then, that never gets called either.
I think this is just a violation now, although I saw it called as a T back in '91 (the only year I was a coach).

You're right, of course. 9-4. I still don't understand why hitting the ball with a fist is a problem, for anyone but the player who does it.

Jay R Tue Dec 23, 2003 02:35pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ref18
Do you know how long a game would last if at every jump ball situation, we had to line everyone up and throw up the ball. I heard that FIBA might be going to the arrow in the next set of rule changes.
It's a done deal. FIBA uses alternate possession as of this year. I like AP, especially for girls games and the lower levels where you can have 10-12 held balls a game.


Jurassic Referee Tue Dec 23, 2003 03:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
The one I wonder about it the T for punching the ball with a fist. But then, that never gets called either.
I think this is just a violation now, although I saw it called as a T back in '91 (the only year I was a coach).

You're right, of course. 9-4. I still don't understand why hitting the ball with a fist is a problem, for anyone but the player who does it.

The rule was instituted as a safety measure. The rationale for it was that a player trying to punch the ball could miss and punch another player, by accident.


tharbert Tue Dec 23, 2003 03:26pm

The new NCAA mechanic for the calling official to go table-side after reporting a foul makes my "stupid" list. This change wasn't made with the officials or the players in mind.

TPS2859 Tue Dec 23, 2003 03:33pm

mark p
Its not who brings the best cheerleaders but who brings the best "m.i.l.f." to the game should be the winners!

NOW for the dumbest rule...
allowing a coach to call a time out when the defence has done a great job in trapping the offence in a corner.
I feel only a player should ever be able to call the time out on there own judgement or by hearing the coach yelling to them to call it.

just my thoughts.

tharbert Tue Dec 23, 2003 03:45pm

Just to clarify, TPS2859, were you referring to "more interesting local fauna".

TPS2859 Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:01pm

according to my son who is away at college it stands for "mothers I'd like to ****".

but who has time to look in the stands....

Snake~eyes Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:08pm

During Timeouts lol :D

TPS2859 Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:13pm

I can see it now...

team "a" has 22 points, 9 rebounds, 4 team fouls, and 29 "M.I.L.F.'S" THEY WIN!!!!!!!

Dan_ref Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tharbert
The new NCAA mechanic for the calling official to go table-side after reporting a foul makes my "stupid" list. This change wasn't made with the officials or the players in mind.
I kinda like it, but it's still December. ;)

Anywho, the reasoning is it will promote "constructive dialogue". I recently had to ask a coach if he felt the discussion we are having is actually "constructive" or even a "dialogue". He mumbled something and walked away... :shrug:

Dan_ref Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
according to my son who is away at college it stands for "mothers I'd like to ****".


my son works for the government and they frown on this type of vulgarity... ;)

TPS2859 Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:37pm

HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN

Dan_ref Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:42pm

Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN
Actually he's a PFC

smoref Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:45pm

Going table-side
 
I like going table side in college. When you are going to report you are already on the way and it allows the coach to ask you a question. Going to the other side, if they had a question and were not able to ask you for a few minutes he/she could get even more steamed and later blow up. It could have sometimes been easily avoided if you were able to talk w/them right away.

TPS2859 Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:55pm

Dan,

your son has my deepest respect!

I was looking to add a little humor to someones day.

Those who choose to serve our country find little to laugh about at these trying times we are in. So I choose to find as much humer in anything as i can for everything has a bright spot if you look hard enough.

Jurassic Referee Tue Dec 23, 2003 04:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN
Actually he's a PFC

Already?

Allright!!

Dan_ref Tue Dec 23, 2003 05:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
Dan,

your son has my deepest respect!

I was looking to add a little humor to someones day.

Those who choose to serve our country find little to laugh about at these trying times we are in. So I choose to find as much humer in anything as i can for everything has a bright spot if you look hard enough.

Hey TPS, humor accepted and respect accepted (on his behalf of course), and believe me there is still plenty left for us all to laugh at these days! :D

Dan_ref Tue Dec 23, 2003 05:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN
Actually he's a PFC

Already?

Allright!!

Lnc Cpl by Feb, if he doesn't f** it up... :)

TXMATTHEW05 Tue Dec 23, 2003 06:24pm

rainmaker...
 
It was actually called at my game last night. I had to do the books for the varsity girls game, as our regular score keeper had surgery. Therefore, we had to get one of the girls from the girls' team to do the books for the boys - it was a choppy transition. I just think a technical foul for something as petty as that could possibly just ruin a whole game. We didn't mind, but heck, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's trivial.

BTW, to everyone else,

There's nothing wrong with being republican. :D

Kelvin green Tue Dec 23, 2003 06:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tharbert
The new NCAA mechanic for the calling official to go table-side after reporting a foul makes my "stupid" list. This change wasn't made with the officials or the players in mind.
Actually I disagree. Here's why. In the old three man, if the calling official were lead (in front court) official would go near table side to report and then have to go all the way across the court to either take up the C position or administer FT's. With her going table side (Trail in FT shooting situations) the other two have things better in hand and dont have to wait for her to get across. The old way never made sense added too many steps. The NBA has done it this way for years. If we are afraid of the coaches because it puts us in front of them, we should not be on the floor. Put the ball in play faster should be the motto and this does.

Bart Tyson Tue Dec 23, 2003 07:09pm

Calling official-table side. As the old saying goes, don't knock it until you try it. I've been doing it for 2 or is it 3 years(?). Well since the women's changed it. I have know doubt it is better. Coaches are not yelling accross the court. In fact, the coach very seldom even ask about the call you made.

tomegun Tue Dec 23, 2003 07:17pm

I could make a long post but I will keep it short: if you don't like going table-side you are scared or unsure of the call you just made.

ChuckElias Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Quote:

Originally posted by tharbert
The new NCAA mechanic for the calling official to go table-side after reporting a foul makes my "stupid" list.
The NBA has done it this way for years.

Well, kinda. In the NBA, the calling official doesn't necessarily go table-side. They go to Trail. So they end up table-side for all FT situations; but if the ball is going to be put in play on the opposite sideline, then they stay opposite and become Trail.

canuckrefguy Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:03pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN
Actually he's a PFC

Sorry, I'm from Canada. Is that anything like KFC?

ChuckElias Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
I could make a long post but I will keep it short: if you don't like going table-side you are scared or unsure of the call you just made.
I just disagree with this. I don't mind going table-side, but I don't think it's a good idea for HS or for NCAA below D1. It's not about being scared, it's about accountability of the coach who loses it while the calling official is standing in front of him/her.

In the pros and in most D1 games, the game is televised. If a coach goes berzerk, it will be obvious on tape and s/he can be fined or suspended by the league. But in HS, lots of games don't get taped. Even in D3, lots of games don't get taped. So if a coach happens to go off in those games, all you get is a paper report from the official. HS coaches are rarely fined or suspended, in my experience, unless they take the students out drinking after the game.

So I think there is very good reason not to go table-side in many games, but it has nothing to do with being scared. And again, I like the mechanic. It has helped me in the past. But I can see obvious reasons for not using it.

tomegun Wed Dec 24, 2003 07:36am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
I could make a long post but I will keep it short: if you don't like going table-side you are scared or unsure of the call you just made.
I just disagree with this. I don't mind going table-side, but I don't think it's a good idea for HS or for NCAA below D1. It's not about being scared, it's about accountability of the coach who loses it while the calling official is standing in front of him/her.

In the pros and in most D1 games, the game is televised. If a coach goes berzerk, it will be obvious on tape and s/he can be fined or suspended by the league. But in HS, lots of games don't get taped. Even in D3, lots of games don't get taped. So if a coach happens to go off in those games, all you get is a paper report from the official. HS coaches are rarely fined or suspended, in my experience, unless they take the students out drinking after the game.

So I think there is very good reason not to go table-side in many games, but it has nothing to do with being scared. And again, I like the mechanic. It has helped me in the past. But I can see obvious reasons for not using it.

Communication with coaches is very important. If I make a call and the coach wants to vent I can take the heat. If I blow a call I can tell the coach I blew it. If I blow several calls then the coach kind of has a right to be on me. I have officiated in a state that has used 3-person mechanics for four years and my experience has shown me, without a doubt, that officials who do not want to go table side have a reason for it. If a coach is going to do something to get a T then they will do it whether we go table side or not. I'm not one to throw coaches out or even give coaches a lot of Ts so I'm not saying this for that reason. I may not know the downside of this because I haven't been in a situation when a coach got a T or two without everyone knowing why. I guess if you have a lot of Ts that aren't obvious then that might be a good argument. But Chuck let me say this, going table side probably doesn't effect you one way or the other. I know it doesn't effect me. But, there are many officials that do not want to do it because they are scared and/or cannot communicate with coaches about a call.

Bart Tyson Wed Dec 24, 2003 09:43am

I've never had an official tell me they were scared to face a coach. I do agree at times common sense says to stay away for the better of the game. But, these are few and far between situations. And even in the NCAA we recognize the need to stay away. I like the table side.

tomegun Wed Dec 24, 2003 09:47am

Nobody says it but I know of some officials by name that are afraid of this. When you make some phantom calls you don't really want to talk to a coach. We've all seen this formula: bad call + upset coach = Technical foul. These are the people that would not benefit from going table side. I'm not talking about anyone on this board. Just being on this board shows that we care for the game more than some others IMHO.

ace Wed Dec 24, 2003 12:59pm

I started teaching myself this about technicals for a coach.

If I made a crappy call he'll get more leeway than usual. I will after a while ask him to calm down.
Now if I made a good call and everyone and thier momma knew it was the right call; Then yeah. He's got a bout 20 seconds to hold some dignity before I get him for it. I'm not going to give a technical for something I screwed up on. If he's upset at a bad call I made he's got a right to because they're paying for good offiicals and if we dont give them that they should be miffed. This comes back to a freshman game I called in the first few weeks of the season.

Made freethrow - lots of confusion going under the post - I even get confused wrong team (B) steps OOB with the ball. OH WAIT_ WRONG TEAM! TWEET! I Give the ball to the right team and A Coach goes BONKERS! THATS A TECHNICAL FOUL! I said It was my mistake no-time ticked off. He wouldnt not calm down. I warned him fair and square. Finally between quaters my partner and I are discussing another play that happend. Coach starts coming out to center court YELLING! My partner said - Coach please return to the sideline, We will not dicuss anything with you out here. He kept walking and hollering so I whacked him. I reported it. Partner told him he was seatbelted, he shrugged his shoulders and said fair enough.

ChuckElias Wed Dec 24, 2003 01:53pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
It's not about being scared, it's about accountability of the coach who loses it while the calling official is standing in front of him/her.
Communication with coaches is very important. If I make a call and the coach wants to vent I can take the heat.

Tommy, you're missing my point. It's not about the courage or the competance of the officials. It's not about taking heat. It's about accountability on the part of the coaches.

In HS, you have many coaches with little or no professionalism. HS coaches go off all the time with literally no just cause. They misunderstand the call, the rule, the situation, whatever. . . The best way to avoid that situation is to have the calling official go opposite, that's my only point.

Dan_ref Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:39pm

Quote:

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN
Actually he's a PFC

Sorry, I'm from Canada. Is that anything like KFC?

I'm sorry you're from Canada too.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:44pm

No doubt about it: three seconds in the paint.

Larks Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:58am

Quote:

Originally posted by Ref Daddy

Worst rule: Alternate Possession.

I was told it was added because most Referee's cannot throw a strait jump ball. Heck thats the easiest thing to do!



Some think the toss is a bad idea and we should go to a coin toss and then use AP. Of course, then we'd all have to practice tossing a coin, catching it and determining if it's heads or tails. Way too tough.



[Edited by Larks on Dec 26th, 2003 at 12:02 AM]

wizard Fri Dec 26, 2003 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
No doubt about it: three seconds in the paint.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just curious... Why?

BigJoe Fri Dec 26, 2003 06:59pm

I would like to discuss my dumbest rules. The first rule is the substitution. I don't understand why the "check in" is necessary. If you are a disqualified player and go in, then the table can buzz you and you can issue a technical foul. Being an ex hockey player, I don't have anything against changing on the fly providing we are working three man!!!
The new two man mechanic for time out positioning makes no sense to me. Luckily we haven't had alot of coaches asking where the ball will be put in play, but the old way seems to make more sense to me. I understand that they are doing this to mirror the three man, but with two man there is alot more distance to cover for both officials.
I could see three seconds in the lane treated like breaking the plane on a throw in. Have a warning and then a technical foul. That would eliminate "camping" and would make for alot more movement through the lane.
I would like for all officials to know the difference between a fumble and a dribble. If you don't know, please check out the definitions and get this call right.
I think that dunking in warmups should be allowed prior to the 10 minute mark. If one team can't dunk, too bad. In most varsity games up here in the sticks, a team has one or two dunkers per team but they can't make it happen in the game. Give the crowd what they came to see. Also, hanging on the rim would be penalized with a T.
Here is a rule I would like to see added. Give the coach one card that reads "I am stupid and don't know the rules". When he violates this rule, he loses his card. If he violates again, he is gone. We can't enforce this for the fans, so I guess we will just have to go with the coach!
Sorry for the ranting, but it is the day after Christmas and I don't have anything else to think about!
Have a Happy New Year!!

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Dec 26, 2003 07:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Larks
Quote:

Originally posted by Ref Daddy

Worst rule: Alternate Possession.

I was told it was added because most Referee's cannot throw a strait jump ball. Heck thats the easiest thing to do!



Some think the toss is a bad idea and we should go to a coin toss and then use AP. Of course, then we'd all have to practice tossing a coin, catching it and determining if it's heads or tails. Way too tough.



[Edited by Larks on Dec 26th, 2003 at 12:02 AM]


I agree, I cannot believe that I forgot all about alternating possession.

MTD, Sr.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Dec 26, 2003 07:11pm

Quote:

Originally posted by wizard
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
No doubt about it: three seconds in the paint.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just curious... Why?


It is my opinion that it is a rule whose time has passed. The motion offense that teams now use requires players to be moving not standing around like dead wood. Plus, I think that too many officials do not when to call it and when not to call it.

MTD, Sr.

BK Fri Dec 26, 2003 08:18pm

Don't you think that if the 3-seconds rule was not in place that motion offenses would change?

Dan_ref Fri Dec 26, 2003 09:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by wizard
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
No doubt about it: three seconds in the paint.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just curious... Why?


It is my opinion that it is a rule whose time has passed. The motion offense that teams now use requires players to be moving not standing around like dead wood. Plus, I think that too many officials do not when to call it and when not to call it.

MTD, Sr.

I've seen teams with multiple 6'9" ers whos job it is to pretty much stand around like dead wood in or near the paint. Seems to me the 3 second rule at least keeps them from growing roots.

As for knowing when & when not to call it, that's a coaching problem, not a rules problem.

canuckrefguy Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN
Actually he's a PFC

Sorry, I'm from Canada. Is that anything like KFC?

I'm sorry you're from Canada too.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/cmmsdm/smilies/bigcry.gif

HEY....that hurts

Adam Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:35pm

Here in Iowa, the girls use a coin toss to start the game. The year they made the switch, I was taking a break from officiating, so I never heard the rationale behind it. It strikes me as silly, especially at the high school level.

Adam

KingTripleJump Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:03am

No one in my chapter is really fond of the "shirts have to be tucked in" rule. It takes so much time to tell every player on every dead ball to tuck their shirts in. It gets old.

Camron Rust Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:17am

Quote:

Originally posted by KingTripleJump
No one in my chapter is really fond of the "shirts have to be tucked in" rule. It takes so much time to tell every player on every dead ball to tuck their shirts in. It gets old.
Tell them once. Tell them twice. Third time, I need a sub. They'll keep it in if they want to play.

KingTripleJump Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:21am

Well our chapter has come to the point where we don't even give them warnings. If it's not tucked in, and the pants pulled up to the waist, then they don't come in--no questions asked.

Every coach has agreed with this and, surprisingly, not b*tched about it.

JugglingReferee Sat Dec 27, 2003 01:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by Larks
Quote:

Originally posted by Ref Daddy

Worst rule: Alternate Possession.

I was told it was added because most Referee's cannot throw a strait jump ball. Heck thats the easiest thing to do!

Some think the toss is a bad idea and we should go to a coin toss and then use AP. Of course, then we'd all have to practice tossing a coin, catching it and determining if it's heads or tails. Way too tough.

[Edited by Larks on Dec 26th, 2003 at 12:02 AM]

Some of us will have an advantage: we're football refs as well. :)

But, just be sure you didn't accidentally exchange your regular coin with your party trick double sided coin.

Snake~eyes Sat Dec 27, 2003 02:00am

That's true. But all you have to do is remember what the initial call was and which side is heads. And ya don't want to end up like NFL and have to paint the heads side red. :p

JeffTheRef Sat Dec 27, 2003 02:09am

WHOA. Punching the ball
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
The one I wonder about it the T for punching the ball with a fist. But then, that never gets called either.
I think this is just a violation now, although I saw it called as a T back in '91 (the only year I was a coach).

It is crucial that punching the ball be disallowed. Think about what might happen if, in the mele of rebounding, someone punched at the ball . . . and missed.

Along the same lines, while kicking at the ball is not forbidden, any other kicking is, including feigning kicking at the ball. If, in the official's judgment a kick is being used as a threat, it's a T.

rainmaker Sat Dec 27, 2003 02:24am

Re: WHOA. Punching the ball
 
Quote:

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
Along the same lines, while kicking at the ball is not forbidden, any other kicking is, including feigning kicking at the ball. If, in the official's judgment a kick is being used as a threat, it's a T.
I don't understand this. Could you repeat it in different words?

JeffTheRef Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:29am

Re: Re: WHOA. Punching the ball
 
Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
Along the same lines, while kicking at the ball is not forbidden, any other kicking is, including feigning kicking at the ball. If, in the official's judgment a kick is being used as a threat, it's a T.
I don't understand this. Could you repeat it in different words?

The only legitimate kicking motion is an attempt to kick the ball. Every once in a while, some devilishly clever player will flash leg in the path of an opponent ('kick') for no purpose other than to divert the player from his or her path. It also happens sometimes when a player is on the floor. If the kick connects, we generally see it as a trip - but if it doesn't connect, and it has any effect, and perhaps even if it doesn't, it's a T, unsportsmanlike conduct. We need to discourage kicking . . . and punching.

Jurassic Referee Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:57am

Quote:

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
[/B]
We need to discourage kicking . . . and punching.
[/B][/QUOTE]The rules cover these acts very explicitly now. It's simply up to each official to use the existing rules.

Rule 4-18-1- <i>" Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.Fighting includes, but is not limited to, such combative acts as an <b>attempt</b> to strike, <b>punch</b> or <b>kick</b> an opponent with a fist,hands,arms,legs or feet <b>regardless</b> of whether contact is made"</i>.

What more do you need than that, Jeff? Covers all the situations that you talked about, if you want to use it. Handle with care, though.

ace Sat Dec 27, 2003 01:27pm

What Chapter are you in KTJ?

I personally do not allow subs on my court if there shorts arent up and thier shirts arent in. Before the game I tell EVERYONE in or around the circle shirts in pants up. Try to keep it that way ladies (or gentlemen). You play better. And its not usually a problem. However when I tell a kid to tuck his shirt in and get his pants up and he rolls his eyes at me I'll tell him again. If he doesnt do it then he's gunna sub out. Im not the "shirt and short king" but ya know.. If i have to tuck my shirt in, so should they LOL.

Mark Padgett Sat Dec 27, 2003 02:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ace

If i have to tuck my shirt in, so should they LOL.

Years ago, when Al McGuire was coaching, Marquette University wore uniforms designed to have the shirts worn on the outside. The design of the stripe on the side of the shirt continued down to the shorts. They were incredibly good looking.

Too bad they can't do that anymore.

just another ref Sat Dec 27, 2003 03:35pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett


Years ago, when Al McGuire was coaching, Marquette University wore uniforms designed to have the shirts worn on the outside. The design of the stripe on the side of the shirt continued down to the shorts. They were incredibly good looking.

Too bad they can't do that anymore.

Is this an NCAA rule, tuck them in, period? NFHS 4-15 A team jersey designed to be worn inside the pants/skirt shall be tucked inside.....

NorthSide Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:59am

While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.

tomegun Mon Dec 29, 2003 06:30am

Quote:

Originally posted by NorthSide
While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.
Isn't that just brutal? I agree with being on the court for a men's game but that is the worst part of the night for me.

bob jenkins Mon Dec 29, 2003 08:37am

Quote:

Originally posted by just another ref
Is this an NCAA rule, tuck them in, period? NFHS 4-15 A team jersey designed to be worn inside the pants/skirt shall be tucked inside.....
NCAA 3-5: Art. 2. Game jerseys shall be tucked in the game pants.

Grail Mon Dec 29, 2003 03:51pm

The NFHS rule I hate most is allowing Coaches to call a live-ball timeout. As an official I'm trying to watch the game (or at least the players in my primary). It is difficult in a loud gym to hear the coaches, much less turn around to verify that it is in fact the coach requesting the time out. When the ball is dead it's not an issue, but when the action is happening, make the players think for themselves and call the time outs.

Grail

Rich Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:15pm

And then the coaches expect you to be all-seeing -- they'll stand there making a little time-out signal with their hands and if you don't respond immediately they act as if you're watching some other game.

Most of the time you know when a timeout is coming and can be ready for it. But not always.

Rich

BktBallRef Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Grail
The NFHS rule I hate most is allowing Coaches to call a live-ball timeout. As an official I'm trying to watch the game (or at least the players in my primary). It is difficult in a loud gym to hear the coaches, much less turn around to verify that it is in fact the coach requesting the time out. When the ball is dead it's not an issue, but when the action is happening, make the players think for themselves and call the time outs.
Ladies and gentlemen, please stop calling in. We have a winner. :D

Mregor Tue Dec 30, 2003 07:37am

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
And then the coaches expect you to be all-seeing -- they'll stand there making a little time-out signal with their hands and if you don't respond immediately they act as if you're watching some other game.

Most of the time you know when a timeout is coming and can be ready for it. But not always.

Rich

And to top it off, they have an offensive set called "five out" and when he screams it, you give him a time out and he looks at you like you are stupid when you grant it.

Mregor

Rich Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:04am

Since you're local to me Mregor:

Belleville's varsity coach has such a play. I granted him a timeout during a varsity game last season when he called such a play. He's a really nice guy and we had a laugh over that when I went back early this season and asked him if he still runs that play.

BTW, I cancelled the timeout and put the ball back into play. When I go back there later this season, I will remind my partner of it since the guy working with me is not my regular partner.

Rich

Pirate Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:36pm

O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

Mregor Tue Dec 30, 2003 01:13pm

Very Close 2nd place, IMO
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Pirate
O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

Yeah, that's a good one too. Right behind coaches requesting TO.

Mregor

Rich Tue Dec 30, 2003 01:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Pirate
O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

It's a lousy angle when the players can't enter the lane until the ball hits the rim.

I think we should remove THAT rule and make rebounding more about positioning and technique (boxing out) again and less about which way the ball happens to bounce.

Rich

Camron Rust Tue Dec 30, 2003 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:

Originally posted by Pirate
O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.


I disagree with Pirate's implication that the defense does not have an advantage. The numbers from last year, IIRC, have the defenders getting over 80% of the rebounds on FTs. With this year's change of only allowing two offensive players only the lane, those percentage will certainly go up. This certainly appears that the defense has a distinct advantage on FTs. If we really want to go any further, we should simply remove every one from the lane and give it to them OOB on a make or a miss (and I'm not advocating that).

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
It's a lousy angle when the players can't enter the lane until the ball hits the rim.

I think we should remove THAT rule and make rebounding more about positioning and technique (boxing out) again and less about which way the ball happens to bounce.

Rich

The problem with that is that a majority of officials were not calling it correctly: contact (rough play) that should have been a foul was routinely ignored. There was a lot of shoving and pushing with no calls. They gave up on getting the officials to make the call and eliminated the situation.

The only advantage to the defense in going in on the release is that they have more time to push the offensive player away from the basket.

Mregor Tue Dec 30, 2003 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust [/B]
I disagree with Pirate's implication that the defense does not have an advantage. The numbers from last year, IIRC, have the defenders getting over 80% of the rebounds on FTs. With this year's change of only allowing two offensive players only the lane, those percentage will certainly go up. This certainly appears that the defense has a distinct advantage on FTs. If we really want to go any further, we should simply remove every one from the lane and give it to them OOB on a make or a miss (and I'm not advocating that).

[/B]
Of course it's an advantage, which is intended, but I think the Fed could have achieved the advantage in other ways. If they want to limit it to 6 players in occupied lane spaces, IMO they should have left the bottom ones empty. This gives the defense more room and they wouldn't have to be as physical trying to maintain (or gain) their advantagous position. It also keeps someone close to the thrower so they can box him/her out more easily. Compound that with not being able to enter until contact and you have long rebounds coming back and defenders in awkward positions. I've had more calls for FT violation by the shooter in the first month of the season than I've had in 5 years. Or they could have let all spaces be occupied and let the low person stand on the block and let them enter upon release. Either of those options in my opinion would have achieved a better result.

Mregor

Disclaimer: Although we are all rules interpreters, I am not a rules interpreter for anyone other than myself at my particluar game I am working. Any post made by me is "just my opinion." It is worth what you paid for it.

Rich Tue Dec 30, 2003 02:03pm

Quote:


The problem with that is that a majority of officials were not calling it correctly: contact (rough play) that should have been a foul was routinely ignored. There was a lot of shoving and pushing with no calls. They gave up on getting the officials to make the call and eliminated the situation.

The only advantage to the defense in going in on the release is that they have more time to push the offensive player away from the basket.

I'm aware of the history behind the rule change. I just hate that the rules were changed because officials didn't do their jobs. *I* never had any problems calling rebounding fouls. Just like now I don't have any problems calling off-ball fouls even though half the officials I watch work (mostly JV officials before my games) are notorious ball-watchers.

Instead, now we have people on the lanes trying to game the system by sliding in the lane RIGHT at the last minute. Technically, we have violations on just about every free throw, but nobody (including me) calls it that way.

I'm just venting. I just hate how they dumb the rules down so that they don't have to worry about officials. They did that in NFHS baseball, too, with the automatic appeal back in the 80s. It took more than a decade for them to realize how stupid that rule was and change it back to match the other codes.

Rich

bob jenkins Tue Dec 30, 2003 02:06pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mregor
Of course it's an advantage, which is intended, but I think the Fed could have achieved the advantage in other ways. If they want to limit it to 6 players in occupied lane spaces, IMO they should have left the bottom ones empty. This gives the defense more room and they wouldn't have to be as physical trying to maintain (or gain) their advantagous position.
The FED considered this option and rejected it for this year. If the defense still doesn't get "enough" rebounds, then look for it to be implemented in the next couple of years.


Mark Dexter Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
according to my son who is away at college it stands for "mothers I'd like to ****".


my son works for the government and they frown on this type of vulgarity... ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN

Well, I guess Bill had IILF's . . . .

Mark Dexter Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:24am

Quote:

Originally posted by NorthSide
While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.

Never seen it done this way . . . . .


Most refs I see come out onto the court at about 15, do the meetings, check the book, then head back downstairs at 10 or so (when at least one team goes back to the lockers). They then come back up at 3 minutes left - whether teams were back on the court ahead of that time or not.

bob jenkins Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:56am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Quote:

Originally posted by NorthSide
While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.

Never seen it done this way . . . . .


Most refs I see come out onto the court at about 15, do the meetings, check the book, then head back downstairs at 10 or so (when at least one team goes back to the lockers). They then come back up at 3 minutes left - whether teams were back on the court ahead of that time or not.

That's (generally) the NCAA women's mechanic.

Rich Wed Dec 31, 2003 02:04pm

We (in WI) are on the court at 20 minutes. Captains meeting at 12:00, R checks the book right after while the U goes back to the sidelines. After the table meeting, R goes back across. Meet the coaches (V first) at 1:30 and ask the required question.

We don't leave the floor even if the teams do.

Other WI officials may do it differently -- this is how my partners and I do every game.

Rich

A Pennsylvania Coach Wed Dec 31, 2003 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by TXMATTHEW05
Hello, all. I was wondering, what do you think the dumbest rule in basketball is?

First, administrative technicals for something like the starters not being marked. I can understand incorrect numbers and such (even though most would agree that 99% of the time it's just error, not deceiet). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what difference it makes. When I do the books, I don't even mark who goes in afterwards, because that sort of information is irrelevant, really. The only purpose I can see would be to confirm that the number is in the book, but I double check during the pre-game. I just don't get it. It's a dumb rule.

What do you all think?

I should probably read the thread first, but I like this rule. I've convinced officials to enforce it twice. I use that ten minutes to contemplate how I want to matchup in a man-to-man defense, and to possibly refresh certain players on the tendencies of the player she will be guarding.

BobW Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:00am

Dumbest rule?

My nominee is the "legal" jump stop.

It is a travel in the base case, codified into legitimacy for some reason (maybe someone knows?) .... when you add in what higher level players (NBA and DI) are allowed to get away with (stepping after the stop, non-simultaneous landings), it makes for a lot of headaches at all levels.


Stan Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by Pirate
I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.
Iowa girls do this. I think it works.

Thanks, Stan

ChuckElias Sat Jan 03, 2004 01:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BobW
My nominee is the "legal" jump stop.

It is a travel in the base case, codified into legitimacy for some reason (maybe someone knows?) .... when you add in what higher level players (NBA and DI) are allowed to get away with (stepping after the stop, non-simultaneous landings), it makes for a lot of headaches at all levels.

Although I agree with you, Bob, that the jump stop should not be legal (as I've written a few times), it's not a travel "in the base case". Traveling is a result of illegal movements of the pivot foot. And when a player receives the ball while airborne, the pivot foot is not established until the second foot touches the ground. So when the player lands on one foot, s/he hasn't yet established either foot as the pivot. So it's not a violation to lift and then return that foot (since it's not yet the pivot foot) to the floor.

I don't like the result, but it's legal b/c of how the pivot rule is written.

BobW Sat Jan 03, 2004 03:02pm

ChuckElias:

I see it differently. NFHS 4.42.2.b.2 is the origin of the jump stop ... the stated assumption is that the ball is caught with "one foot on the floor" ... if this article was not in the rule book, the one immediately preceding it would dictate that the foot on the floor is the pivot foot ... the article I cite, imho, is essentially an exception to the prohibition against the pivot foot returning to the floor.

You do correctly point out that the jump stop deals with the establishment of a pivot foot but that (restrictions upon the pivot foot)is the core of the travel rule ... not two steps, or one-and-a-half steps.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1