Thanks for responses to the Duke/UConn, Zags/Nevada, and conference-to concerence style of play posts I made recently....

A question: Are there, or what are the fundamental differences in officiating an NBA game as opposed to an NCAA game (outside of rule differences)?

There are other semi-formed questions on this subject in mind, and perhaps responses will solidify them...

Not sure what you're asking. There are many fundamental differences in the rules, that really can't be ignored in this discussion, and in the officiating mechanics. The NBA game is is played by stronger, quicker, and faster men than the college game. It's also more of an entertainment-business. Both of those issues require that the rules be different and that it be officiated differently.

NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

Thanks for your reply b-ball ref... I surely understand the differences in athletic ability between the two.

Officiating mechanics? Now that's a term 99.44% of those outside of your profession are unaware of!!! Are you referring to floor position and rotation? An explanation of "mechanics" would be a great place to start... explaining how the entertainment side of the NBA affects the manner in which NBA officials call games would also surely be helpful.

I'm a fairly reilgious watcher of NBA TV's 30 minute segment with Ronnie Nunn... An announcer shows plays that may have been controversial to get Nunn's assessment of the officials' calls. They also have a rules interpretation segment within the show accompanied by video -w/ Nunn providing explanations... it's a great show to gain an introductory understanding of the NBA ref's percetions and thinking....

Now, this is where i get lost: a defensive player obviously reaches in while the offensive player begins to make a move toward the basket. The announcer says, "now that's a reach in."

Nunn responds: "We regard this as incidental contact. The offensive player was moving from point A to point B and the defensive player didn't impede him from reaching point C." The announcer give Nunn a quizzical look & moves on to the next topic. Meanwhile I'm watching & have to mute the television to absorb what was said, and then I say, "Wha-?!

So, if you could provide me with a set of basic rules differences, a rudimentary understanding of officiating mechanics, and how all of this is affected by the entertainment value, that would be a godsend....

Please excuse this reply length. However, understanding your job is integral to me avoiding the uniformed knee-jerk reactions to officials' calls so many of my sports media peers have...

Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

First of all, there is no such thang as a "reach." You will not see any rulebook use that language. It is not illegal to "reach" for the ball at any moment. But if you reach for the ball and you grab a ball handlers arm and prevent them from shooting or dribbling the ball, then you can have a foul. But that is only if the contact is not considered "incidental" which Nunn seems to explain, but not very well it seems. The term "Reach" is a coaches, player's and fan's language. Officials that know any better do not use that language. Because it is not illegal.

Basketball is not like Football, there are not a couple hundred differences between the college/HS and pro levels. The main difference are obvious. Three point line length and maybe the shot clock, but there are not many "fundamental differences" that affect the game. This is why LeBron James can make a jump from HS to pro and not have much trouble. It is a different game, but not because the rules are so different, the talent level makes things different.

Peace

Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

First, there is not a call for reaching in, that animal does not exist. Any contact that does not hinder normal offensive or defensive movement is incidental. Player moving to A, has contact at B, successfully reaches C means that the contact at point B did not hinder the offensive player, thus no foul.

:) What you're asking would probably take three pages of posts to explain but I'll address a few points.

#1, you can compare the two links below and see the differences in signals.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/00422964.html

http://www.nfhs.org/staticcontent/pdfs/bbsignals03.pdf

The differences in floor position are less and less each year. Most of the technics used in three man officiating was developed by the NBA and trickled down to the NCAA and NFHS.

The rotations/switches are somewhat different but nearly as much as they use to be.

#2, Officiating Philosophy

Just because contact occurs, it doesn't mean there's a foul. In the situation that you described from the announcer and Ronnie Nunn, the myth is "reachin' in." There's no such thing as reachin' in. If a foul occurs, it's either illegal use of hands or holding. But it's not a foul just to reach for the ball. In the situation described, why penalize the offensive player, who has a clear path to the basket, just because the defender stuck his arm out? Unless the contact places the offensive player at a disadvantage, then a foul hasn't occurred.

That's what Ronnie was saying. Good officials apply the principle of advantage/disadvantage to such situations. If an advantage is gained or a player is placed at a disadavantage because of contact, then a foul has occurred. And that's true at all levels of play.

NBA officials are going to ignore the trivial stuff, like the extra step on a drive to the basket, or bump that Yao and Shaq exchange while banging in the post.

#3, the big difference in the game is the strength, quickness, and speed of the players. More contact is allowed. When you have 10 such players moving together in such a small area, the game is going to be physical.

#4, a few rule differences:

There is no closely guarded situation in the NBA. An offensive player who has his back to the basket and dribbling the defender down into the post has less than 5 seconds to make his move. This is designed to cut down on "isolation" plays and involve the team more.

The NBA has things like away-from-the-play fouls, elbow fouls, punching fouls, and loose ball fouls. The NCAA doesn't.

The NBA also has a defensive 3 seconds rule, which replaced the illegal defense rules from a few years ago. There are no such restrictions on the defense in the NCAA.

You can check out the rules for each at the links below.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html

There are other officials here who have actaully officiated within the NBA rules. Hopefully, they'll pop in and tell us more.

Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

The best advice that I can give you is to listen to exactly what the announcer says and then know that the opposite of whatever was just said was true.

Announcers, in general, have no clue when it comes to the rules and say some of the most asinine things... They are to blame for the majority of fans that also do not have a clue about the actual rules of the game!

On the other hand, if Ronnie Nunn says it, you can pretty much take it to the bank!

Just a lil something I picked up watching the playoffs last night... can't remember which game. And it is small.. but, kinda shows you how creative the best officials can be (NBA).

One of the players was arguing something. Apparently Bavetta had mentioned this exact thing in the pregame captains meeting. So he tells the player.. "We warned you guys about that in the pregame captains meeting (or somethign like that).. do you REMEMBER that ?"

Just thought it was creative to use something as simple as the captains meeting to relieve a situation. The player simply shook his head and walked away. There are so many small things that the best officials do.. that go unnoticed. That keep a good flow to the game and avoid confrontation. NBA officials you could argue... do it better than anyone out there.

iamaref,

To piggy back on that. It might have been the same conversation, I am not sure.

Bevatta was talking to Steve Francis of the Houston Rockets and not sure why they were talking but Bevetta said this to Steve. "You know I respect what you do and the kind of player you are? Give me that same respect?" All Francis could do was agree with him.

I thought it was so cool that he "broke it down" so that he could understand and get respect by using those words to relate to a player.

Peace

NBA Officials what NOT to call and who to not call it on.

What are you trying to say... That NBA officials do in fact subscribe to the "Star Treatment" philosophy? If that is your point, I don't buy it.

I sat through a very insightful talk by Ed Rush last summer and he addressed the perception that the Star treatment exists. His points were too lengthy (and I could not state his thoughts as well as he did) to post here, but after hearing his side of the story, no one could talk me into subscribing to the Star Treatment.

If I misunderstood your post, my apologies in advance.

NBA vs NCAA officials
 

Thanks all for the answers... bktballref - I downloaded all the info & am going to watch a game tonight with the NBA rulebook as a guide...

Last night Bavetta was talking to Oliver Miller (the captain's meeting conversation)... & yes the previous incident was with S. Francis...Bavetta appears to be one of the better communicators in The League.

Finally, yes I must admit that NBA officials are expected to be perfect the first time they step on an NBA court. However, in quite a few games this year I've heard announcers (usually ex-players) mention that there's been more turnover recently - young officials replacing retired officials.

They have explained that, like a rookie or young player in The League, it takes some time for a new official to get fully used to the players' skill level, pace of the game, etc. Then they must work around, and with, all the different personalities, from the chronically-complaining of a Vlade Divac, to the tempermental Rasheed Wallace, to the "Zen" outbursts of Phil Jackson...

The learning curve is steep, but hey, somebody's gotta keep the peace!!!

Thanks again for the replies...

Star Treatment
 

I also spoke with Mr. Rush in July, and also with Ron Garretson and about seven other NBA officials that I could name. The star treatment does exist to some degree in the NBA, just not to the level that the general public likes to believe it exists. (It even exists some in college and high school)

However, what I ment by my post was that they are the best at determining Advantage/Disadvantage, thus knowing better than anyone when to blow the whistle and when not to. This is why it may seem like the game is a little dirtier than the college game. Players obviously are much stronger so they can play through quite a bit more contact. This is what I beleive seperates a NBA official from all of the other officials, because I sure know how hard it can be to bite my whistle sometimes.

Besides, as one NBA Official told me, "You just got to have IT, I don't know what IT is, but you need IT to work in the NBA."

NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

w_sohl...

...the "star treatment" exists in every sport... baseball players known for their "exceptional knowledge of the strike zone" get the benefit of the doubt at the plate from umps; great receivers often get away with a little extra push to "gain separation" from a defensive back, etc.......to me, at least, that stuff is no big deal...

Advantage/Disadvantage - As I absorb the posts, that topic is one to really remember and deserves much attention while viewing a game. Just thinking of a game from the perspective of advantage/disadvantage is an eye-opener... the booing crowd, the screaming coach, the grimacing player mean so much less when viewed from that perspective...

Re: Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Player moving to A, has contact at B, successfully reaches C means that the contact at point B did not hinder the offensive player, thus no foul.

If a player is moving to A and ends up at C instead then the contact must have hindered him from gettng to point A.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

Quote:

I sat through a very insightful talk by Ed Rush last summer and he addressed the perception that the Star treatment exists. His points were too lengthy (and I could not state his thoughts as well as he did) to post here, but after hearing his side of the story, no one could talk me into subscribing to the Star Treatment. If I misunderstood your post, my apologies in advance.

Way to add nothing to the discussion! You heard a talk, that you won't discuss, therefore you disagree. And you do so without stating one cogent point as to why someone should agree with you.

The fact is, it sounds like a very interesting talk you had the benefit of hearing. I would like to read some of these points, so if you're willing, take a stab at it and put the thoughts in the thread.

Otherwise, why bring it up?

Re: Re: Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by footlocker

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra Quote: Player moving to A, has contact at B, successfully reaches C means that the contact at point B did not hinder the offensive player, thus no foul. If a player is moving to A and ends up at C instead then the contact must have hindered him from gettng to point A.

A,B,C is a progression if you are moving on that line and you stay on that line, you were not hindered. If you are moving on that line and there is contact at point B and you end up on F that is a foul, A,B,F is a foul.

Re: Star Treatment
 

It is you are 6'3", have 20" biceps, and a 30" waist.

D-wil,
I must say your humble demeanor is refreshing in this thread, especially in light of all the fans that have graced our presence lately. Thank you.

Adam

Re: Re: Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by footlocker

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra Quote: Player moving to A, has contact at B, successfully reaches C means that the contact at point B did not hinder the offensive player, thus no foul. If a player is moving to A and ends up at C instead then the contact must have hindered him from gettng to point A.

I think he ment "FROM A"

Way to make a request in an argumentative fashion!
 

[/B][/QUOTE]

Way to add nothing to the discussion! You heard a talk, that you won't discuss, therefore you disagree. And you do so without stating one cogent point as to why someone should agree with you.

The fact is, it sounds like a very interesting talk you had the benefit of hearing. I would like to read some of these points, so if you're willing, take a stab at it and put the thoughts in the thread.

Otherwise, why bring it up? [/B][/QUOTE]


I certaninly hope your demeanor with coaches and or players isn't this combative right from the get go. :rolleyes:

As I stated, I won't be able to explain as well as Mr. Rush but this evening, if I have time, I will post the gist of what he said. I can't make lengthy posts throughout the day most of the time, well because I have to work!

The reason, I brought it up was to state that based on what I have heard, I don't buy into the Star philosophy as many people buy into carte blanch and stated my basis for not buying into it as Mr. Rush's speech. Someone implied that ref's don't call fouls on certain players even if they beleive they have indeed fouled.

That is why I posted. Now whether or not that is good enough for you, I don't really care.


[Edited by BBall_Junkie on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 04:43 PM]

I guess I disagree with both parts of this statement. I don't think pro officials are looking for things NOT to call. My experience is that the pro philosophy is "look for things TO call". They don't want ticky-tack calls, but they don't want to overlook rules infractions b/c of the game situation.

In HS and lower NCAA games, if the game is a blow-out, many officials say to each other, "Ok, Team B (losing team) gets the benefit of the doubt. We'll get everything on Team A, but we'll try to let stuff on Team B slide if we can." The thinking is that since the game is essentially over, there's no reason even to seem like we're "piling on" to Team B.

The pro official will never take that mindset. You look for things TO call; not for things to let go.

As far as "who to not call it on", the pro philosophy is to be aware of who has how many fouls. They will not avoid calling a foul when a foul needs to be called. But if they have a choice of giving the foul to the guy with 3 fouls or the guy with 1 foul, they will give it to the guy with 1 foul. They are already aware of which guy has more fouls, so it looks pretty smooth. They're not going to shy away from the foul if the guy commits it all by himself; but if somebody else is around, they will likely give it to the other guy.

Does that make sense? The philosophy is not "don't call fouls on the stars". The philosophy is "if possible, distribute the fouls so that the stars can stay in the game."

Just my opinion from very brief experience.

You're not saying this thinking is limited to the pro ranks, are ya?

Absolutely not, but (I think) every pro official thinks this way, while a much smaller percentage of HS officials think this way (or have the awareness to know which player has fewer fouls).

Did you ever think that maybe there might be HS officials that do have the "awareness", but also think that this pro philosophy should NOT be applied at the HS level? Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to get the impression that you may be looking down your nose at officials that might not agree with you that pro philosophies should apply at the HS level.

Of course! I never said that it should be used at the HS level (although I personally do use it in my HS games). I merely pointed out that this particular pro-oriented philosophy is not used as much in HS games. Can't really argue with that, can you? That's for one of two reasons: either the HS official isn't aware of the philosophy (or the game situation), or the HS official intentionally doesn't apply pro philosophies to his/her HS games. Neither reason necessarliy makes the HS official a bad official.

C'mon! I hope you know me better than that, JR. My two games do not qualify me to look down my nose at anybody. If I was going to be snooty, you think I'd stick around after all the times you post that squirrel?!?!?!

Re: Way to make a request in an argumentative fashion!
 

I was with you up until I read this... Now I know that you are grasping at straws!!!

Isn't this your Friday off? ;)

Did you ever think that maybe there might be HS officials that do have the "awareness", but also think that this pro philosophy should NOT be applied at the HS level? [/quote][/b]
Of course! I never said that it should be used at the HS level (although I personally do use it in my HS games).

[/B][/QUOTE]Could you please explain that pro philosophy a little bit further, Chuck? As in, exactly how you do assign that foul? You said that if somebody else was around, they might give it to that guy. Do they, and you, take into account whether the contact from one player may be stronger than that of the other, and usually is(at least imo). Or that the contact by both of those defensive players rarely occurs exactly simultaneously? Just wanna make sure that I understand completely the pro philosophy that you are detailing.

Chuck is talking about taking one for the team, if two defenders are there, the one with fewer fouls gets the foul. Who hit A1 harder or first does not enter the picture.

So one defender can smack the hell out a shooter, and do that first, but another defender can then barely make contact, and that slight contact can occur AFTER the first defender smacked the hell out of the shooter, but the pro philosophy is to then call the 2nd defender for the foul if the 2nd defender has fewer fouls. Right? And that's true even if the second defender is Shaq, and the first defender is just some scrubeenie off of the bench, because you're supposed to "distribute" the fouls to the player who has the fewest. And this exact same philosophy is used in HS ball if the official happens to possess the "awareness" to be able to use it. Correct?

I take it that you and Chuck both agree with this philosophy, and it's usage. Or am I wrong?

Let's just say
 

If I have an equal chance to call a foul on either player, I'll give it to the player with fewer fouls. If it is a clubbing it is a foul on the clubber.

Like you have room to talk Brad... What time did you get up this morning? LOL You working Kingwood Tourny this weekend?

Re: Let's just say
 

Whoa, that's not what you said before. You said " Who hit HARDER or FIRST does NOT enter the picture". Do you think that that really is an "equal" chance, if you're automatically gonna give the foul to the defender who has the fewest fouls charged to them, no matter what?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 04:45 PM]

Re: Re: Let's just say
 

You asked Chuck about HIS NBA PHILOSOPHY and I answered about that, not my personal philosophy.

Nice try though, one day you might actually agree with something I post, but I'm not holding my breath.

Now who's looking down their nose? Jeez, you grumpy this afternoon?

Look, blindzebra's exactly right. If I have two players who contact the shooter, and I can remember that B1 has 3 fouls, but B2 doesn't have any, then I give the foul to B2. The amount of contact is only relevant if it's significantly different. In your terminology, the clubbing has to be called over the slight contact. I mean, that's pretty obvious, right?

Well, the very last words of my pre-game notes say:

• Call the obvious;
• Protect the shooter;
• Referee the defense;
• Trust our partner(s).

First on that list is "Call the obvious". A guy clubs somebody and he gets a foul. But if two players contact the shooter (happens all the time), and if the difference in contact is not that great (and usually, it's not), and if I am aware of the fouls on each of the players, then the guy with fewer fouls will probably get the foul.

Now, as for the "Shaq" reference, I don't really have to worry about that, do I? :) But my guess is, if the choice was:

1) Give the foul to Shaq (who has 1 foul) or give it to Kobe (who has 3), I think they'd give it to Shaq.

or

2) Give the foul to Shaq (who has 1 foul) or give it to Luke Walton (who has 3), I think they'd give it to Walton.

Again, that's just my guess. Remember, the philosophy is to distribute the fouls (if possible) so that the stars stay in the game.

Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

1) I'm trying to understand the NBA philosophy. That's hard to do if you keep changing your description of what it is.

2) I really don't have a clue whether you and I have ever agreed on anything. I never keep track of things like that, with you or any other poster. Basically, I really don't give a dexter, one way or the other.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

Gotta start working on that "agreement awareness"? :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

I never changed a description of a NBA philosophy, I talked about taking one for the team as it applies to the NBA and how I call it. You were looking for something to rag on me about and ignored what I clearly posted.

It is obvious that you do go out of your way to disagree with several posters on this forum and you always ignore any relevent arguements these posters bring up.

It's getting warm in here
 

Wow, I have to simply say that it isn't obvious. Or I'd have noticed it. :)

Chuck, I 'm no grumpier than I usually am, believe it or not. :D I'm just trying to understand where you guys are coming from, and, quite frankly, you've both got me confused as hell.

1) Blindzebra said "Who hit HARDER or FIRST does NOT enter the picture. You say that you agree with him. Now you are also saying that you WILL give the foul to the defender that DOES hit harder(club someone). Hello? That's exactly why I asked the questions above. What am I missing here? If you go back and read my posts, I haven't disagreed with anything yet. It's hard to disagree when you're not completely sure of whatinthehell the "pro philosophy actually is.

2) Again, you're confusing me. Are you telling me that the "pro philosophy" of equally distributing fouls does NOT apply to the stars like Shaq? It only applies if the star has more fouls, but it doesn't apply if the star has fewer fouls, is that correct? What difference is there between that and outright favoring the stars when it comes to fouls then?

3) And you still personally think that the same "pro philosophy", as detailed above by you and Blindzebra should be used in HS games also? Who hits harder or first does not enter the picture. Give the foul automaticlly to the player who has fewer fouls, unless that player also is the star. In that case, you give it to his teammate.

Re: It's getting warm in here
 

You must have been caught in a stack, so I got it for you partner.

Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

What is the name of that show? I can't find it anywhere! :( Thanks!

Re: Re: It's getting warm in here
 

Nah, trust me. I saw the play just fine. :) JR may be growly, but I've never seen him bite.

I think the "Taking one for the team" philosophy should be
used in HS, but not the same way it is applied in the NBA, where amount of contact and star versus role player enter the mix.

I will call the foul on the player with fewer fouls when the contact occurs at ABOUT the same time and the amount of contact is ABOUT the same.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

I never changed a description of a NBA philosophy, I talked about taking one for the team as it applies to the NBA and how I call it. You were looking for something to rag on me about and ignored what I clearly posted.

It is obvious that you do go out of your way to disagree with several posters on this forum and you always ignore any relevent arguements these posters bring up.

[/B][/QUOTE] Actually, it's very rare for Chuck and myself to disagree. And I still don't know yet whether we disagree or not in this thread. I'm still trying to pin down what the "NBA philosophy" actually is. So far, what I've got- from your words and Chuck's- is that if 2 defenders foul an opponent, you automatically give the foul to the defender who has fewer fouls. And the degree of contact, or whether one opponent maybe made contact before the other opponent is not relevant at all. Unless one of the defenders is one of the team's stars. In that case, the other player- not the star- will get the foul. And officials in HS ball should have the same "awareness" so that they can use the same philosophy there.

That's what I got so far. Heckuva system.

I'm not convinced the philosophy should be used in HS at all. Some refs have the awareness, but choose not to call a game this way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

Actually, it's very rare for Chuck and myself to disagree. And I still don't know yet whether we disagree or not in this thread. I'm still trying to pin down what the "NBA philosophy" actually is. So far, what I've got- from your words and Chuck's- is that if 2 defenders foul an opponent, you automatically give the foul to the defender who has fewer fouls. And the degree of contact, or whether one opponent maybe made contact before the other opponent is not relevant at all. Unless one of the defenders is one of the team's stars. In that case, the other player- not the star- will get the foul. And officials in HS ball should have the same "awareness" so that they can use the same philosophy there.

That's what I got so far. Heckuva system. [/B][/QUOTE]

See my post above. Same philosophy, different applications.

[Edited by blindzebra on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 05:55 PM]

Why, if you apply it consistently?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

I never said automatically. I said "if possible"! If the star player clobbers the shooter then it's not possible to give it somebody else, b/c everybody in the gym knows he hammered him. That's part of calling the obvious.

Again, I never said it was not relevant. It goes into the mix of "if possible".

I think that I understand now. In HS, you should always give the foul to the player with fewer fouls. It doesn't matter that that player might be the star(and the only good player on that team), and the other player might be Sammy Scrub who's just on for his usual 2 minutes per game. The star is gonna get the foul because he's got fewer fouls.

We do agree that this is <b>really</b> different than the "pro philosophy", don't we? Or do we?

Agree?
 

Yes, it is different, but I've been saying that all along. LOL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

Blindzebra's quote was <i>"Chuck is talking about taking one for the team. If two defenders are there, the one with the fewer fouls gets the foul. Who hit A harder or first does NOT enter the picture"</i>. You said that you agreed with him, Chuck.

Do you or don't you?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 07:08 PM]

Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

I have actually had a veteran varsity ref tell me I should have called a foul on a non-"star" player because he wasn't as important to the game, even though the non-star didn't commit the foul. (The star player picked up his fourth foul early in the fourth quarter.) That pisses me off.

Call the foul on the fouler
 

I think it's a joke to give fouls to someone other than the guy who fouled. Better players should also be better at avoiding the foul. In a game, I was called for 2 real fouls, one phantom foul, and one foul that was committed by someone else--all in the first half. I played the entire second half WITHOUT committing another foul. I also ended the game with 14 rebounds and 6 blocked shots, so it wasn't just an attempt to stay away--I just played smarter.

Just my two cents.
 

JR,

I am with you on this one. I do not agree with that at all. Do not get me wrong, if two players foul a shooter, I might pick the player with less fouls if I realize it. But I am not going to blanantly give a foul to the second guy that made slight contact if the first guy was not smart enough to not foul. I do believe in the philosophy that you should make the 4th and 5th fouls on a star or significant player "be there," but that does not mean the other fouls should not be there as well. I just know that the last couple of fouls are what is going to be remembered. I just use that as a consentration tool more than anything. But I do not agree with purposely distributing the fouls. If a player does not want a foul called, do not foul or cause contact that might make an official call you for something.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just say
 

And I said he's exactly right. Ok, I see your point. I took him to be speaking generally, about the normal course of play, like the usual situation where a shooter gets hit by two defenders at roughly the same time with about the same amount of contact. You took him literally to mean that the level of contact never matters. And that is what he said, so it's understandable. I stand by everything I've written in this thread except for that word "exactly". :)

But as I've tried to say as I've elaborated, the level of contact will matter if it's obvious that one of the defenders really hammered the guy. You have to call the obvious, at any level. If you get a foul that's excessively hard, that's the foul you call -- at any level.

Put another way: If possible, distribute the fouls so that the stars stay in the game.

So I'll state again my interpretation of the pro philosophy: if two players contact the shooter (happens all the time), and if the difference in contact is not that great (and usually, it's not), and if the official is aware of the fouls on each of the players, then the guy with fewer fouls will probably get the foul.

Re: Just my two cents.
 

Then you do agree with me, b/c that's all I'm saying. If two players foul a shooter, I might pick the player with fewer fouls if I realize it. That's all I'm saying. We agree on that point.

Simple. I don't think hs ball should be about the stars. For those players who are going to move on to higher levels, it doesn't do them much good to give them "star" treatment. It also doesn't do them any good to help them get more than 5 fouls in a game, regardless of whether they are stars or not. I think for me it's an instructional thing.
I agree with Rut, that we should make sure the last couple are obvious, but if the guy with four fouls comes in and hacks the offensive player, followed by a teammate doing the same thing; I'll be calling the first foul, because that's the rule.

Unless, of course, my assignor wants it done differently.

Re: Call the foul on the fouler
 

Eric, it's a joke if that's what you think blindzebra and I are saying.

When HS kids find the forum and make posts like this, we tell them to get over it and move on with their lives. . .

Re: Re: Just my two cents.
 

Not really. Because I do this only in very rare situations. I do not do this to "distribute" fouls or not to call fouls all together. If a star clearly fouls another player, he is getting called for it regardless.

I worked with a very experienced official this past year and he tried to get me to call a foul on a "secondary" player that did not make a foul, when a starter clearly took the arm off the ball handler. He thinks that I should have not called a foul because this player was about to foul out. I did not care what his foul situation was, because if you had the look I had, it was no doubt this starter just grabbed the ball handler. It would have looked bad if I decided not to call a foul on this kid just becasue he had 4 fouls. Now if there was any doubt who fouled first, that is one thing all together. But if it is clear, I really do not care what their foul situation is. And from what I read that is not exactly what you are saying. But I did come in this conversation late and might have missed your explaination. I was responding to a comment JR said on page 2. I did not realize that that was not the last page of this discussion when I posted.

Peace

So I'll state again my interpretation of the pro philosophy: if two players contact the shooter (happens all the time), and if the difference in contact is not that great (and usually, it's not), and if the official is aware of the fouls on each of the players, then the guy with fewer fouls will probably get the foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]Didn't you also add that "the guy with fewer fouls will probably get the foul <b>unless</b> he happens to be a star? Do you agree with that part of the pro philosophy?

Re: Re: Re: Just my two cents.
 

Who ever said anything about "not calling fouls altogether"? Where did you and Eric come up with that? NOBODY is saying that you should not call a foul when the shooter is fouled. I would never say that, and it's obvious that pro officials do NOT subscribe to that philosophy.


So what happens if the star player and another defender foul the shooter at the same time? They both obviously foul him. Are you going to call a multiple foul? No way, right? So if you know -- for whatever reason -- that one of the players has 3 fouls and the other only has one foul, who do you call the foul on?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to make my point as clearly as possible. What you said in your previous post is the same thing I'm saying.

No, I don't think I did. . . :confused:
_________________________________________
[Edit] Oh, ok, the Luke Walton crack. That's why I threw "probably" in there. Remember, we're distributing the fouls to keep the stars in the game, if possible.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 10:05 PM]

If you look way back on p2, he was answering a very plain, literal and specific question that I put forth- i.e. "Do you take into account that the contact from one player may be stronger than another, and that this contact rarely occurs exactly simultaneously?".As per his answer above relating to that question, he replied that it DOES NOT matter who hit the player harder or first. You just give the foul to the player who has he fewer fouls. That's what you agreed with, Chuck. I took him literally because that was his answer to a literal and specific question.

Where did I say anything about not giving it to the "star" player, I said, "If I am aware that one player has more fouls and they both contact A1 at about the same time and you don't have one player killing A1, I'm giving the foul to the kid with fewer fouls."

As for calling the first foul, by rule you should call BOTH FOULS if it is on an airborne shooter.

Yes, Chuck, you did say that. You were basically saying that there IS a "star" system in place in the NBA then, and that the "fewer foul" philosophy doesn't really apply to the stars- only the average players? No wonder it's such a tough game to referee,eh?

You're right. I already said I should not have agreed "exactly" with the way blindzebra worded it. Uncle!

However, in everything I've said since then, is the "pro philosophy" at least now clear?

Yeah, I think so. And as the NBA is mainly an "entertainment" league, I can't really say that the pro philosophy is wrong. I also could never,ever say that the officials were wrong in carrying out their league mandate. They don't have a choice. Has to be hard sometimes, though. Too much thinking involved.

I do think that that particular "pro" philosophy has no place in high school ball though, but I also don't think that you were advocating that anyway.I think that you and JRut might actually be pretty close in what you were trying to say. Which is that the last foul on a "good" player should also be a "good" foul. Or am I wrong?

Don't be jealous because I can work from home while you are in class all day!!

I was not scheduled to work the tournament this weekend because I had some family and friends in town... However, BBall_Junkie had to call me in at the last minute to come take care of some business! Many fouls and three technicals later we got things under control! :)

It was either call you in or work the championship by myself because my co-official for the previous six games punked out on me. So it was call you in since you live up the road or work it by myself. After I thought this through long and hard, I decided that having you there would be slightly better than going it alone. :D

Just kidding! Thanks for the help. We had our share of PAB's in that game for sure ;)

I had a coach tell me he was going to f me up as long with sevearl other things. I was working with J. Lopez and T. Robinson. :shakes head: Steve and the Tourny director eventually gave him the the heave ho for the rest of the tourny. Some of those people were just stupid. I got asked to come back in July so iwas excited. Finally got to wear my stinking gray shirts. Had a 4 game stretch to finsih off the ngiht saturday. Damian said BBall_junkie dropped quite a few T's friday night. I had my fair share this weekend. So much for not wanting to give any. Hanging on the rim for no reason... F bomb... back talking... Gave a coach two really good stop signs I went up the floor and came back down again and he was still talking about the play so I rung him up. Wish I coulda seen what the score was and how much time there was left before I done it though. Anyway... glad we all had some fun. FYI - I ran 3-man all week... Whos going to San Antonio for Stigs camp besides me?

Am I missing something?
Was this meant to be a PM?
Can someone translate?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Don't worry tomegun -- we can barely understand ace in person!!! :)

I never can get my personal messaging thing to work, probably should have emailed it. I figured with this for at the bottom of the thread and only Brad and BBall posting It'd be safe to talk about a tournament that most of officials from Houston worked this weekend.

Coach - let me be the first to say farewell.

Somewhat shockingly, I've never been threatened at rec sports games - if I ever were, the player would be ejected, and campus police would be getting a nice little call.

It doesn't help that Ace is all of 5'6"!!!

At 6'5" I have never had a coach tell me that he was going to f me up!

<small>I did have one say that he was going to wait in the parking lot and kick my a$$ though (didn't happen of course)!</small>

Brad, I'm 6'3" but I've gotta tell you we had a guy on our team in college that was only 5'6" and was nicknamed "Rock". He was a golden gloves champ in HS and he could F both of us up pretty good! Of course, he was not an Ace so I don't know. :)

Right on. The police should be involved with a threat like this.

5'8 Brad... if your going to tell people how SHORT I am atleast get it right. And no one ever gives me any crap about being short either. They're are plenty of short referees in the NBA and college. I do get alot of funny looks becasue I look so young..oh wait... I am! LOL. Brad - send me an off board email. I got to work with Burkhalter this weekend and I got some promising news for this season.

JA

Is that with or without sneaks? :)

With.... :-/

It all looks the same from up here! :)

So why doesn't Ace get the oompa-loompa pictures, huh?!?!

1)Because you're the one that's truncated(saw that word in another thread and thought I'd adopt it as Today's Word).
2) Because Ace doesn't bug us about the Yankees like you and Rocky the Flying Squirrel-nee Seattle Fanboy does.
3) Ace is also young, while you and Rocky are- well- middle-aged and progressing rapidly to the over-the-hill stage.
4) We like Ace.

Ace, what tournament are you talking about? One of my friends went to Houston last weekend for a tournament and I was wondering if it is the same one. He flew in from Vegas and it was supposed to be a nice tournament.

ACE is talking about the Kingwood classic and I am sure that the official who came from Vegas worked that tourney. The tournament used over 40 facilities and 1000 games plus or minus were played starting Fri evening and ending Sun afternoon. Information about the Tourney is on the web at visionsports.com.

The person who assigns the officials for the Tourney works Tourney's out in Vegas as well so it is possible that he asked someone that he know out there if they wanted to come work this one.

By the way, I question the 5'8??? Maybe when you are wearing your favorite 2" inch heels :D

But as Brad said it all looks the same from our altitude!

Yes the Kingwood Classic... We've also got the AAU nationals this summer in July :-D. If you want to come work I'm sure Steve would be more than happy to have you down.

Now Brad and BBall, I am 5'8 unless my doctors lie to me.(And no Its not the head doctors)


FYI Thanks JR :-D LOL