I am still replaying a situation that happened months ago in my head-please give some advice on how you would call it.

MS boys 7th grade game. I am the T for a free throw. After the shooter has the ball I see a kid form the opposing team standing on the 3 point line. I don't know why I didn't see it earlier as I usually watch for this and 'coach' the kids to avoid these minor violations, before the ball is passed to the shooter. I put up my hand and signal a delayed violation and call it after shooter misses the shot. Now I knew at the time this is a nit-picking call and I took some heat for it from Coach B.


Would you call it? does it depend on the level-Middle school, jv, Var?
-If no, what do you do if Coach A also saw it and asks. It was minor but obvious. "Sorry coach but I didn't think it was that important so I ignored it."

-Wouldn't the HS coach for team B rather the ref calls it and the kids learn and not make the same mistake later? Interested in opinions from refs as well as coaches who are on this board.

If you saw it before the shooter had the ball it was not a violation yet, so tell the kid to get off the line.

I would find a more important call to replay in my head for months. If you don't have one, you're doing well!!

Seriously, you should (a) learn to check before the ball is bounced. (b) hope the shooter swishes (c) call it when it happens. If you don't make a big deal out of it, neither will anyone else.

Whoo-eeee...boy, will you ever get some varying responses here!
Sooooo, you want us officials to ADMIT that we will sometimes let a violation go, hey? ;)
Here is the "black and white" response:
The rules were put in place for a reason...so enforce them!
You wouldn't let a player touch the OOB line without a call, would you? So don't let a player touch any line they are not alowed to without a call! What other rules are you going to choose to ignore?

Here is the "advantage/disadvantage" response:
There was no advantage gained by the player barely touching the 3pt. line with his/her itsy bitsy toe. Why make such an absurd call? The opposing Coach probably wouldn't want you making that call on his/her player either.

Here is the "depends on" response:
depends on what level...call it in Middle School to teach them a lesson.
depends on what time of the game it is...maybe call it early, but don't you dare call it with one second left in a tie ball game during the State Championship game!

There are a few responses...fellow officials, let us hear more! :)

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that you usually catch these things early. Whenever I find myself in a situation like that, it's a reminder that I have to be more focused, especially on free throw situations.

Feeling a little vituperous tonight, are we?! :D

Nah...not really ornery...just having a little fun at work tonight. :)

Does the kid run in for the rebound? How soon can you tell whether or not this player will get the rebound?
If not part of the play, then I would strongly suggest to let it go.
I fall into the advantage/disadvantage category.

I had a personal experience with this call last season.
In a 3-man crew, I had a partner call this "violation" from the C, while I was T, on the defense during the first shot of a one-and-one with the shooter's team leading by one with 34 seconds remaining in the 4th quarter.
The defender did not even move from the top of the key to attempt to rebound.
Of course, the shooter made the substitute throw.
It created a bad situation.
The coach went nuts, after the game a fan chased us down a hallway to a lockerroom telling us how good he thought we were, and a video tape of the game was sent to the league office.
All over a toe on a line which was about twenty feet from where the rebound was being contested.
JMHO

I saw a referee once call this particular violation of "toe on the line" during free throws. I thought it was an awful call and kind of ticky-tacky. The two players were having a little chat and forgot that they were close to line. There was no advantage gained, and neither player were going to go for the rebound. This made the referee look officious and pedantic too as he made the call from the lead position. Poor man-management skills.

Just be thankful the situation didn't happen on the court. ;)

I make that call everytime. Lots of situations that the rule spells as a violation but may not have a advantage/disadvantage until the situation is played out. If the situation originally posted (violation not called) is seen by the coach, then later you call it on his player because the rebound goes toward his player, you have opened yourself up to trouble. And it is trouble you deserve.

Call the violation.

In the State Championship, when the kid standing on the line tips in the miss by beating everyone else in there thanks in small part to his eight-inch head start, and wins the game thanks to an illegal act that you saw and chose to ignore...

The original play had the kid standing on the 3 pt line minding his own busness on the FT.

If that kid can get to the basket and tip in the miss without moving in too early I would stop the game and shake his hand.

IMO: there's nothing to be gained by calling this particular violation, but you need to make sure it doesn't happen again. If the coach is seriously barking at you for this you have bigger probems to deal with.

This has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage. This has to do with whether or not the kid learns that he shouldn't be on the line. If he doesn't learn it's wrong, he will continue to do it.

As someone who trained officials for 13 years in a rec league that begins in 3rd grade, let me tell you that our philosophy was to make the call then tell the kid (nicely) why you made the call. We have found that is the best way for kids to learn the rules.

Kids need to learn from their mistakes. If it's not pointed out to them that they made a mistake (and that mistake has to be put in its proper context of importance), they will never learn.

I'd ignore this one. (Assuming player was just standing there and not getting into the play). I'd also tell them, once, to make sure they were behind the line next time. It really is not the spirit of the rule to call players for touching the line if they're not distracting the shooter and not attempting to be part of the play. The rule is there to prevent players not on the lane from getting a good position for a rebound and also to prevent them from interfering with the shooter.

I called a similar violation in a playoff game this year. However, while the player was not going for the rebound, it was far more obvious. They were on offense and sort of wandering around waiting to play defense after the shot. They wandered to a point about 3 feet inside the arc and even with the FT line. Not a word from the coach to me.

Had a player one game think she was being smart by sneaking down around the 3 pt line during free throws to try for better position on the rebound. I had three delayed violations before I actually had to blow my whistle. This was sophomore girls, and I didn't feel it was my responsibility to coach her on the rules. She learned the rule quick, though, when I gave the shooter another shot.

In the second NCAA national semi-final this year, Connecticut had free throws in the double bonus up by 3 with about 3 seconds left. The shooter (Okafor) was very jacked up. After the ball was put at his disposal, he backed up and very very nearly left the semi-circle. The official was watching it closely. I was almost hoping he stepped out to see whether it would be called. I think it would have been, and then there would have been some serious prayer going on that he nailed the second.

Ah, but was the official counting towards 10? :D

I got three lines into this post, and I'm rummaging around in my memory for a free throw in the last three seconds, and thinking, what, what? .... when I finally got to the word, "Okafor". Oh-ho! I see. MEN'S NCAA semi-final, Connecticut. Just for future reference, there's one sport, basketball, with two groups of players. There's men's basketball, and women's basketball, or in hs there's girls' and boys'. It's not basketball, and women's basketball. It's not Connecticut, and Connecticut women. Okay, got it straight? Thank you, I feel better now.

PS this isn't personal at you, rulesmaven. You just happened to be standing there when my annoyance with the sportswriters and announcers and certain coaches, though not others, and not a few referees, sort of boiled over. Here, let me wipe the spew off of your cheek here, and shake my hand. I'm sure we can get past this.

Attaboy!

Right! Always best to stand up like a man and say what you're thinking.

Yup, that rainmaker showed some serious huevos.

Yes, I get it.

I suppose I thought the situation described would make it pretty clear which national semi-final game I was talking about. (And anyway the WCBB semi involving Connecticut, would have been the fourth national semi, not the second!)

Maybe I'm not understanding the point, but if I had put the word "Duke" in the first sentence, would you still have wanted to see "Men's" in there?

Well, Duke women didn't make it to the semi- this year, but they have done well in the past. My point is that there WERE both women and men from Connecticut. It's just another way to narrow down who you are talking about. When you never actually say who you mean, it gets confusing. When I read your post, I think basketball. But for me, there's " women's basketball" and "men's basketball." I think women's first, because that's what I do the most and what I'm the most interested in. But most people think the other way around, and figure that's normal. Even the newspaper puts in their listings, "NCAA basketball" or "NCAA Women's basketball." I'm objecting to that. It's all basketball. It's either men's or women's, not either "basketball" or "women's basketball." There aren't lawyers, and lady lawyers, just lawyers. Not doctors, and women doctors, just doctors. Get it?

I do get it.

I might argue that the more progressive approach is to not use either the designation "men's" or "women's" unless it's unclear from context.

Your assumption seems to be that if I'd been discussing the women's Connecticut semifinal instead of the men's that I would have put the word "women's" in there. I'm not so sure I would have if it was equally clear from context what game I was talking about. What if I would have simply said, "In the second national semi, there was an interesting issue when the Minnesota player appeared to be allowed to check in, notwithstanding Auriemma's objection, although no time had expired on the clock"? Aren't I then permitted not to use the designation "men's" when talking about the men's tournament?

After all, I don't say that I'm going to the "men's room" when I try to explain to my wife why I'm getting up from the table at a restaurant. I would just say, "I'm going to the restroom." But that hardly means that I think of the "restroom" as being the place for men and the "women's restroom" for being the place where women go. It just means that it's clear from context -- just as when I refer to a national semi that was put away with three second left at the line by Emeka Okafor, I assume people will know which of the national semis I'm talking about.

I understand that there are lots of people who think of "basketball" as what the men play and "women's basketball" as what the women play. I'd like to think I'm not one of those people, and genuinely don't think I am. With all due respect, I think my post was hardly good evidence that I am, but I'm certainly willing to keep my mind open to the possibility I might be.

With all due respect, if the name "Okafor" told you it was a men's game, then what's the big deal? :confused:

If he had written, "In the second NCAA national semi-final this year, Connecticut had free throws in the double bonus up by 3 with about 3 seconds left. The shooter (Taurasi) was very jacked up," should men be equally as upset as you? :confused:

The original situation falls under my "Big Deal" theory. Is that player's toe on the line 19'9" from the basket during a FT a big deal? If it is, then put a whistle on it. If not, you let it go and mention it when you get a chance.

It's exactly like the carry in the backcourt with no defensive pressure. Is that a big deal? If you feel it is, then call it. If not, you let it go and mention to the coach that his point guard is awfully close to a turnover. My personal opinion is that neither situation is a big deal.

Now if he carries the ball as he makes his move to the basket, that's a big deal. Whislte. Putting a toe OOB, that's a big deal.

It's a little different from advantage/disadvantage, but it works for me.

As somebody's tagline once said, "In theory, theory is the same as practice. But in practice, it isn't."

How about basketball that people watch, and basketball that people don't watch?

Sorry, sorry, Juulie. Just stirring the pot!! :D

Could be just me, but I don't understand the concept of choosing to make - or not make - the call based on whether the offending player is close to getting a rebound, primarily because of the mechanics involved. (I understand differing opinions on advantage / no advantage or big deal / not a big deal, but this situation has a mechanics twist.)

If you're going to call it, shouldn't you be making the signal for a delayed call? If so, you would have the signal when you notice the violation. This could be 2, 5, or 8 seconds before you actually blow the whistle.

If you're waiting to judge if the offending player is close to a rebound, then you must not be using the delayed signal. In that case, you would make no signal and then blow the whistle after you watch to see who is near the rebound. (You wouldn't signal for a delayed call and then, after seeing the offending player is not near the rebound, just put you're hand down as if nothing happened later, would you?)

I confess, I'm a rookie here, so the whole mechanics part of this issue may not be a big deal. However, I would think that using a delay signal and calling nothing or not using the delay signal and then calling something could alter the confidence level some coaches (or other officials) have in you. For example, how confident would you be if every time an official calls a foul he/she does so with an open hand? Wouldn't you wonder if this official was competent in other areas?

Good questions. I know my response aint the answer you're looking for, but here it is. And I'm NOT saying forget mechanics, because they are very very important along with rules knowledge. Having said that, let's try to answer it this way: at most levels - and especially at the level you're calling as a new guy - coaches and players don't care enough about mechanics to know if you're doing it by the book or not. They just care that the game gets called well (sometimes means in their favor, sometimes not) and that they eventually win. Your job, on the other hand, is to ensure the game is played within the spirit of the rules and that the better team that game wins. Focus on that and you won't have coaches questioning your ability.

Great point. Yea, in the case of Minnesota, it's not necessary to specify which semi-final. Nor in the case of Duke, at least not this year. Putting in neither designation is okay, too, as an overall policy. But in the case of Connecticut this year, I think it would still be best to specify. Not so much on the basis of gender-discrimination, but just for clarity of thinking -- namely, mine!

And you get lots of points for spelling that Connecticut coach's name correctly. WOW!!!

So? What's so hard about spelling Calhoon...Calhoune...Cal...wait, I'll be right back...dubdubdubdotgoogledotcom....

...OK...what's so hard abput spelling Calhoun correctly?

Dan, Coach Cal was a whole different guy. He was up here in Mass!

Excellent use of the past tense :D