My turn to vent - but there's a 3 second call question in here somewhere.

[Mark Padgett]

Last night I worked with a partner I've never seen before. He said he has over 20 years experience (13 of it in another part of the country), but only 7 years with one of our local associations. He showed up late so we didn't have much time for a pre-game. Toward the end of the second quarter, with team B down already by 25, I made a 3 second call on B. It was perfectly legitimate.

At halftime, this guy starts lecturing me about advantage/disadvantage, based on my call. I was polite and pretended I was listening. I know that this call is a pet peeve of his commissioner (we are in different associations - this was a rec game), and they feel you should not call this if the player "is not gaining an advantage by being in the lane".

I used to think that way until I let a couple of guys who were in the lane while the play was way outside all of a sudden have inside rebounding position when an unexpected shot went up. Of course,once the shot is taken, you can't make the call.

In my association, our point is that anyone in the lane too long, by definition, gains an advantage - that's why they have the rule.

At first I thought he was referring to the fact that there was already a wide point spread and that I should cut team B some slack - and that's a different arguement. In fact, I had yelled at the kid to get out of the lane, and only made the call when he didn't (yes - he heard me), and my count had reached about 6.

How do you guys feel about advantage/disadvantage on players being in the lane too long?

BTW - this guy blew two travel calls when players were on the floor, forgot to chop the clock 3 times after made free throws and actually called both a "reach" and "over the top" fouls. I felt vindicated. Of course, my mechanics were perfect, as usual.

[Brian Watson]

Once I haer "over-the-back" I usually run the other way. Nothing gets my blood pressure rising more than a follow official saying it.

So much of calling the game is how you see it. Personally, I try to concentrate on the physical stuff, and 3 seconds is down on my list of things to watch. Having said that, if I do see it, I will call it. You are correct, by being in there too long, he has gained an advantage, just becuase the advantage is not obvious, doesn't mean it is not there. Like you, I always try to talk them out, but if they are stubborn, then I watch more closely for it.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
At first I thought he was referring to the fact that there was already a wide point spread and that I should cut team B some slack - and that's a different arguement. In fact, I had yelled at the kid to get out of the lane, and only made the call when he didn't (yes - he heard me), and my count had reached about 6.

Mark, the above statement you made is the key, and that's what I was waiting for you to say. I DO believe the wide point spread is relevant in deciding to make the call or not, but I suspect that's why you were yelling to the kid to get out and finally made the call after 6 seconds when he gave you no choice. I agree wholeheartedly with how you handled that, and would do the same myself.

[zebra44]

I'm relatively new here, so I don't know why the term "over the back" is unsettling to you. To me it has always been an easy way to explain the act of this type of rebounding foul. What term is appropo?

[Brian Watson]

There is no such call as "over-the-back". It is perfectly legal to make a play from behind someone, as long as no contact is made, however, most coaches think this is illegal. Officials using that term hurt, not help the game.

This kind of follows the thread on testing. I have read the rule book cover to cover and I have never seen the "over-the-back" or "reach" violation/ and or foul. This is my soapbox, but if you are going to call a game, do it right. Anything else is either lazy or inexperience. I still see guys who use the "over-the-back" signal when they report fouls. Sends chills down my spine.

I believe what zebra44 is looking for is a "push" from behind. I agree with brian that the "over the back " foul and/or mechanic has no place in the HS game.It's not in the book so don't use it

[JRutledge]

but there cannot be where contact that displaces another player. Sometimes the player that is front of the player behind him/her, can be the one that does the fouling. But other than that I do agree that we need to to use things like "over the back" or even better, "moving screen."

Originally posted by Brian Watson
There is no such call as "over-the-back". It is perfectly legal to make a play from behind someone, as long as no contact is made, however, most coaches think this is illegal. Officials using that term hurt, not help the game.

This kind of follows the thread on testing. I have read the rule book cover to cover and I have never seen the "over-the-back" or "reach" violation/ and or foul. This is my soapbox, but if you are going to call a game, do it right. Anything else is either lazy or inexperience. I still see guys who use the "over-the-back" signal when they report fouls. Sends chills down my spine.

[BigDave]

First, this is my feeling on the lane violation. If Mark has talked to the player and he still doesn't budge after 6 seconds, it needs to be called. I work with a lot of folks that will NEVER call it. Hey, that is their philosophy and I would never challenge it, but how long do you let them stand there? 20 seconds? There is always a gray area, but six seconds is too long. I was recently observed by a PAC-10 official. My pard was lead and refused to call the 3 sec. lane violation. On one occasion, a player was camped out in the lane. As the trail (2-man mechanics), I stepped in and called the violation. The Div. 1 ref commended me on this.

Now, concerning the proper terminology for the push, or as some would say "over the back". Yes, "over the back" does describe what happened, but it is an improper term to use when reporting the foul. It doesn't matter which player caused contact, front or back, it is still reported as a push.

[Paul LeBoutillier]

All this talk about "Over-the-back" is interesting, but did you notice Mark didn't use that term? Go back and read his original post again.

I've noticed some associations just ignore the 3 second lane violation. That's fine (I guess) but as far as I'm concerned it's in the rule book for a reason...and that's because it creates an atmosphere of fairness that otherwise isn't there. It's kinda funny...why are we even debating the 3 second call? We don't ignore other violations...why should this one be any different? We don't make the rules but we OUGHT to enforce them fairly and professionally.

Paul

[JoeD1]

I agree that you should never completely set aside a rule. They're in the book for a reason. But, sometimes there can be a big difference between "legalistic" and "realistic".

We all know that on a 3 second violation, you don't count 1-2-3 call it because you would get a violation every time down the court.

But on the other hand, you don't let a player park it in the lane the entire game.

The best advice I ever got on calling a 3 second violation was to not think about it. If you go out on the court thinking about it, you're going to start looking for it and that's not the correct approach.

If a player stays in the lane long enough for you say to yourself, "hey, he's been in there a while," then it's time to blow the whistle. I try to use this no matter whether it is a 2-point or a 22-point game.

[JRutledge]

the higher the level, the less you "need" to call this. I do not see that often in the varsity games that I even come close to calling 3 seconds. I think the most part they understand that rule and know not to stay that long. I do admit, I do not call a pure 3 seconds, they have to be parked and clearly in the lane. If they are not clearly in the lane, then I talk them out of the lane. I think officials focus to much on this rule, it is not the most important in the rulebook.