Texas Game

[SamFanboy]

Hey, I'm just a fanboy and have no experience with basketball rules. I've never read an official rulebook, so I am not qualified to make any opinions about calls. I was just wondering if Rick Barnes did have a valid arguement about the refs not calling the outside and inside consistently. I would like your honest opinion about how this area of the game was called and not anything about the T's. Thank you and your input is appreciated.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by SamFanboy
Hey, I'm just a fanboy and have no experience with basketball rules. I've never read an official rulebook, so I am not qualified to make any opinions about calls. I was just wondering if Rick Barnes did have a valid arguement about the refs not calling the outside and inside consistently. I would like your honest opinion about how this area of the game was called and not anything about the T's. Thank you and your input is appreciated.

Anyone can look at contact and think it's a foul. But only the three officials on the floor get to make the decision. I felt the game was very well officiated. Barnes is an advocate for his team. Therefore, he's expected to see thing from a biased standpoint.

Officiating post play is not the same as officiating on the perimeter. If the same type of contact allowed on wide receivers by defensive backs that's allowed by linemen? No. Much the same, the interior and exterior games in basketball are officiated differently.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by SamFanboy
Hey, I'm just a fanboy and have no experience with basketball rules. I've never read an official rulebook, so I am not qualified to make any opinions about calls. I was just wondering if Rick Barnes did have a valid arguement about the refs not calling the outside and inside consistently. I would like your honest opinion about how this area of the game was called and not anything about the T's. Thank you and your input is appreciated.

The issue is did contact on either the perimeter or in the paint affect the play of the game? If it did not, it is not a foul, that simple. I personally did not see the entire game, but the officials on the floor have the best look at any play. If they wanted us to call the game from the TV or on the sidelines in a fixed position, then that is what we would do. So if Barnes had a beef, it is not like he had a better angle than the officials the were calling the game. Barnes could have seen things he thought should have been called, but that does not mean it would be the right thing to do. The official on the court have extensive experience and extensive big game experience. They did not just get there by not knowing the rules and what their responsiblity is. And Valentine by himself has been to more Final Fours than Barnes has in his career. So I will always defer to the experience of the officials over a coach that does not study the rulebook and have the same scrutiny to those rules and judgment as the officials do.

Peace

[Hawks Coach]

Post play is generally reffed differently because of the different style of play. Inside, you are trying to use your body to get position on your opponent, outside it is all about speed. Contact on the outside neutralizes speed, which is why it gets whistled quicker (though I thought Jameer took a lot of contact last night, and to his credit said nothing). Inside, the game is constant contact, you do not want them whistling it.

The refs could simply point out to Barnes that his interior players play differently than his outside players and they are probably coached to do so.

[Judge Roy]

That's what I've been asking for.

Where in the rule book does it say that if there is no effect on play it's not a foul?

I'll get a new rule book if you can show me.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Judge Roy
That's what I've been asking for.

Where in the rule book does it say that if there is no effect on play it's not a foul?

Under Rule 4 Definitions.

I am sorry that I do not have my NCAA Rulebook in front of me. I have not done a college game in over a month now. But the National Federation Rulebook says in 4-27-2 and I quote:

"Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive and offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact my be severe."

Then is goes on to say in 4-27-3:

"Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponents from participating in normal defensive or offenseive movements should be considered incidental."

For the record, the wording in the NCAA Rulebook is just about identical, but it is in a different Section of Rule 4 which deals with Definitions. If I had that handy, I would show you the exact Section the rule is located. But I am sure someone will have my back and post it as well. Or I will once I find that rulebook.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
I'll get a new rule book if you can show me.

I guess you have to get your money together.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Jeff, good job, but you left out the broad statement at the start of Rule 4-27- i.e. "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does NOT constitute a foul".
Also,rule 4-27-1 which states The mere fact that contact occurs does NOT constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur".

NCAA rules use basically the same language. I'll go look them up, and take the time to write them up for you, Judge Roy, IF you promise to go away and quit bothering the adults.

Had enough, Judge Roy? You really looked idiotic on this one, didn't ya- for a guy that supposedly refereed at one time? Those rules have been in there a long, long time.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 28th, 2004 at 03:37 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Judge Roy
That's what I've been asking for.

Where in the rule book does it say that if there is no effect on play it's not a foul?

I'll get a new rule book if you can show me.

I guess you're lameass will be looking for a new rule book.

NCAA 4-38
Art. 1. Contact shall not constitute a foul. When 10 players move rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur. Incidental contact shall be contact with an opponent that is permitted and does not constitute a foul.
Art. 2. Contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.
Art. 3. Contact that does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements shall be considered incidental.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Jeff, good job, but you left out the broad statement at the start of Rule 4-27- i.e. "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does NOT constitute a foul".
Also,rule 4-27-1 which states The mere fact that contact occurs does NOT constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur".

You are right, I did leave that out. But I did not want to write all that out. But it is probably the best line for this fool.

Peace

[Mark Dexter]

Wow - Tony and Rut coming together to work on a common cause!

There may be hope for the Middle East.

[Hawks Coach]

Do you still believe he is a ref?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Do you still believe he is a ref?

Yes, perhaps not a very good one but he has officiated. In another post, he referred to Ted Valentine's interview in REFEREE magazine a number of years ago. Unless you're an official or a coach who reads an officiating discussion board, you don't know that REFEREE magazine exists.

The big wuss didn't respond to the rule quotes posted in this thread, nor did he respond to the post by mick concerniong the Tower Philosophy. Prove'em wrong and they'll tuck their tails every time.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Yes, perhaps not a very good one but he has officiated. In another post, he referred to Ted Valentine's interview in REFEREE magazine a number of years ago. Unless you're an official or a coach who reads an officiating discussion board, you don't know that REFEREE magazine exists.

The big wuss didn't respond to the rule quotes posted in this thread, nor did he respond to the post by mick concerniong the Tower Philosophy. Prove'em wrong and they'll tuck their tails every time.

For all I know he read a reference to it in some article in Texas about what a terrible ref Teddy V is - I am not convinced he actually read and remembreed this article. Reading what he said about reffing soccer was ludicrous and makes me wonder if he ever did that either.

Either way, it doesn't matter. He has yet to prove that he has an interest in serious rules discussion, let alone a higher level, non-fanboy understanding of how games should be called. We have all types on this board, but those who stay usually are willing to engage in substantive discussion of rules, applications, and interpretations.