What do I tell the coach?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by oc

I hear what you are saying-and agree. But the situation here was not a toe on the line but a clear violation-standing on the line. If it was just a toe I would pretend I didn't see-but what if it is obvious and the ref clearly saw it and the other coach saw it?

Do those of you supporting ignoring the call still recommend ignoring it? Jurassic interested in your opinion (as well as others)

"it was real close coach." suggested by rulesmaven is a good idea and I will use that in the future when it applies-but it doesn't in this one.

I don't pretend I didn't see it. I've found that coaches appreciate when you're straight with them rather than BS'ing about it.

While some here refer to them as idiots, many are actually quite intelligent...just not in some of the aspects of the game that officials are. A lot of coaches will eventually see through the "I didn't see it" bit. If you "didn't see it" too many times, they'll begin to wonder if you're seeing anything.

I simply tell them why I did't call something (if they ask):

looked like what they claimed, but didn't have a good look or partner had a better angle.

Agree with what they saw but felt it was no advantage or relevant to the game

Didn't see it the way they saw it.

etc.

For this case (a foot clearly on the arc during a FT). It depends. Just carelessly touching the arc, probably ignoring it. Foot completely inside the arc, calling it...just too far...players at least have to pay some attention to where they are. In between, depends on the game. Also depends on if they are crashing the boards or just standing there.

I call it this last year in a playoff game when the player wandered about 3 feet inside the arc. Didn't really have any bearing on the play but it was just oo far to let go. Didn't hear one word from the coach or any player.

[ref18]

With line violations, I call them every time, in my mind the principle of advantage/disadvantage doesn't apply to this rule. It is a clear violation. Foot over the line.

If the shooter can't do it, why would you let anyone else??

As for the coach, just say, "Coach I didn't see it, but I'll watch for it next time"

No need to explain that you're not calling it because it had no bearing on the play or any other BS like that, because what he's hearing is that you're directly ignoring a rule that is benefitting the other team, and he's not going to like that. Call it consistantly and according to the rules, and the players will stop stepping on the lines, or carrying the ball or the other stupid things they do.

[Adam]

ref18,
If the shooter does it, he's got a shorter shot. Clear advantage. If B5 is standing at the arc with his foot on the line but clearly not engaged in the rebound attempt, there's no advantage. Seriously, tell me how he is advantaged by this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
ref18,
If the shooter does it, he's got a shorter shot. Clear advantage. If B5 is standing at the arc with his foot on the line but clearly not engaged in the rebound attempt, there's no advantage. Seriously, tell me how he is advantaged by this.

Yes, ref18, I'm talking about a player who is 19'-20' from the basket, not the shooter, not the rebounders. If any of rebounders or shooters are "in the lane", I call it.

Remember, the primary philosophy governing all rules is that each rule has a meaning and intent. Calling everything by the letter of the book beyond the intent is a disservice to game itself.

In my years as a referee, I've been through all parts of this spectrum. I started by being overwhelmed and missing a lot of stuff...games got rough as I didn't call much. As I became more comfortable and studied more, I swung to the opposite side...calling a lot of stuff that didn't really have any bearing...just because I caught it and the rule said so. I could justify everything I called by a rule. I didn't miss much. As I've learned more and observed more, I've pulled back to the middle. I try to make a concious decision on each call (or non-call). I still make some bad decisions and sometimes just miss things. But, the difference now is that I apply the rules to the game with thought rather than like a zombie or an automatic program.
There's no one right balance to be at but being on the extremes where I found myself earlier in my career is not the right place to be.

The purpose of having (at least) 1 defender and 2 offensive players behind the arc is to prevent them from being immediately involved in the rebounding action and, for the defenders, from interfering with the shooter. If by being on the line they've not done either of those things, they've not violated the intent of the rule. If they cross that line by just an inch when the ball hits in an attempt to crash the boards, I'm calling it.

Call the things that need to be called, not the things you can call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Well thought out and written, Camron. Personally, I can't argue with your stance at all.