A1 shoots and misses a free throw. Before the shot goes up, you as trail and Coach A notice that B1 is standing on the line. He doesn't make a play for the rebound and is ultimately not involved in the play.

Some believe this should be called, others do not. This question is only for those that do not. I repeat, FOR ONLY THOSE THAT NO CALL.....

What do you say when Coach A respectfully asks you if you saw the violation?

"I did not see it that way." Then you walk away.

Peace

Is that a little white lie?

You do not have to explain your judgment calls to a coach ever. You do that out of courtesy and game management. The coach is going to question you when something did not happen at all, why is this any different?

Peace

Because you are blatantly disreguarding a rule. This is not a rule "judgement", this is a rule violation.

I'm looking for a way not to lie by saying that I didn't see it, but that also sounds reasonable to the coach. Again, I said that he approached me very respectfully.

So what you are telling me, when the coach sees something they are right? What you see as it relates to the line is judgment, that is not just a rule. A rule would be making a call about the line, then doing something else. If all you have is a toe on the line that is not obvious, I would not go around trying to get into a debate with a coach about it. Coaches think they see a lot of things and think you are clueless.


I never told you to be a jerk about it. You say what you saw or that you did not see it that way, then you move on. If you feel like you have to admit every time you make a call he does not agree with, you will be in for a long night. Because to me this is no different than a foul or a call that you do not make that he sees. You are not going to see everything the same way a coach does or agree with their point of view. Why is this any different? If you did not call it, you can tell him just about anything. If it bothers you that much, then do not miss the call. But usually, a toe on the line is not something most very experienced officials make a huge deal about.

Peace

If B1 is standing on the 3 point line and makes no play, I have no problem with what jrut says. If they are on the lane, it should be signalled as a delayed violation as the shot goes up, because you don't know if he is going to make a play, but I would always assume he is since he is on the lane.

What Rut said is fine for the moment.
Try that, or try, "Really, I'll try to get a better look next time."
...or there's something like, "Yeah I saw it, but didn't feeling like calling it."

Lotsa options.
Some better, some worse.
Your personal mileage may vary.

mick

There's always "Dang, I gotta get my eyes checked. Could have sworn he was behind the line!"

"I did not see it that way." Then you walk away.


The coach is asking why you did not call the violation. You can either get into a long discussion regarding why you ignored the violation or you could tell him you didn't see it his way.

Rut's answer is short,to the point, and is NOT a lie.

I like mick's first option better, if you don't want to commit a white lie. But his second answer is one that may end up causing more grief from the coach, similar to what happened when Rut suggested it not be called, but more virulent when a coach realizes you are "picking and choosing."

If he truly is being respectful, then he might accept your honesty just fine, "I didn't think it interfered with the play or created an advantage."

You could try, "I'll pay closer attention next time coach, thanks."

Now, if he made the shot then there is an advantage. If he missed it, then did he have anything to do with the rebound? I don't usually allow coaches to chip away (respectfully or not) when a call or a no call that they disagree with was to their advantage. In these cases, I respectfully remind them that the call or no-call was to their benefit.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by footlocker

Quote:

I don't usually allow coaches to chip away (respectfully or not) when a call or a no call that they disagree with was to their advantage. In these cases, I respectfully remind them that the call or no-call was to their benefit.

Not sure why they would "chip away" in such cases?!? Not if they have any clue what is happening in the game. Where I get POd is not the no-calls, but the touch foul in the backcourt called "in my favor" that takes away the fast break my player was starting when the touch occurred. Most experienced refs won't do that to you, but it happens. I don't say anything, other then a quiet "didn't need that call" to my assistant on the bench.

How about, "Coach, I'm more concerned about my court presence than some stupid rule".

Oh, sure you would !!!! :)
That would certainly take care of your Christmas tourney presence.
mick

Okay, as the trail you are standing near to the coach and he draws your attention to the foot obviously over the line. Are you forced to call it? If not, now what?

I'm left wondering why we want to let the coaches operate our whistles for us?

First of all, I am not forced to call anything. Just because a coach says something, does not mean it is actually taking place. If I did not see it the way the coach did, I do not do what the coach thinks I should do.

Peace

I've sometimes said:

Coach, I've passed on the same thing for your team on the other end. I'll call the ones that affect the play.

(Only when it's true though).

I very often pass on lane violations where the players along the lane are touching the line dividing the spaces. I also pass on violations where players outside the 3-point arc pass the arc a little early or are touching the line....if they are simply drifting down to take the ball OOB after the shot. If they are crashing the boards, I call it.

I feel like if the trail has an opportunity to interrupt the shooter and get his feet back prior to the shot going up, then that would prevent the white lie, and keep the shooter within the rule. If the trail DOESN'T have that opportunity, I'd go with the "I didn't see it."

Why do you all still feel this is a judgement call. Everyone in the whole gym, including you, can see that the guys foot is over the line which is a violation.

Explain to me how that's a judgement call, then we can go further.

Thanks Camron, these are the responses I was looking for. Anything else like this? Has anyone gotten in trouble saying this?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lrpalmer3
Okay, as the trail you are standing near to the coach and he draws your attention to the foot obviously over the line. Are you forced to call it? If not, now what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted by Jrutledge
"First of all, I am not forced to call anything. Just because a coach says something, does not mean it is actually taking place. If I did not see it the way the coach did, I do not do what the coach thinks I should do."




A stationary player with his foot on the line (Or over the line) is normally not a judgement call...it is on the line or is not . Not a lot of wiggle room on that one . What you do about it when you see it (and the coach see's it) was the question that was posed . I don't think you have to do "what the coach thinks I should do" there are some ways to handle this as noted in the prior replies .

It is a judgment call if you think that is the case or not. I have had coaches tell me they thought a player had their foot on the line, when I clearly saw something else. So yes, it can be a judgment call. But just because they claim something, does not make it true. ;)

Peace

Judgment Call???
 

First, everyone in the gym is capable of seeing the foot on the line, but in reality, nobody in the gym is looking at the player on the 3 point line if they haven't been going after rebounds. Also, everybody in the gym is theoretically capable of knowing and understanding the rule on this play, but few actually do.

So what you have is something that you see that is a minor technical violation of a rule with no impact on the play. The rule exists for a purpose, to prevent an unfair advantage. But if the player stays out of the play, then they haven't gained an advantage. If the player is pushing their limits to e the first one to a long rebound, they have gained an advantage.

Here is where the judgement in this call really lies. Judge whether or not this "violation" impacted the play in any way, and therefore if this is a call you really need to make. Call what matters, not every technical rules violation you can see. You are not the local health department inspector, you are refereeing a basketball game. Don't make it harder, or more nit-picky, than it has to be.

Now when you add "the opposing coach saw it" into the description of the situation, it makes it a bit tougher. I am not a big advocate of telling coaches that you pass on certain things (especially if he is already a whiner/howler). Good coaches know this anyway and aren't looking for that call. They are also paying attention to what matters in the game. So telling an uninformed coach that it is your job to exercise judgment in what to call can get dicey - you decide if that is where you want to be. It is a simple enough thing to use another out so you don't have to go down that path - "thanks Coach, I'll look for it next time" is one I have heard used frequently - shut em up without being completely non-responsive or combative.

Re: Judgment Call???
 

I tell you where it is a judgment call. It is not completely uncommon to have a shoe where it curves near the toe. I have seen coaches claim the foot was on the line, when you look at another angle, the toe is over the line. This is just one of many reasons I do not listen to coaches for what took place. :rolleyes:

Peace

Well, when I am administering the free throws, I tend to say to the players.."Alright we have 1-1, mind your toes, let the ball hit and don't come in too early" or something to that effect. If I then see a violation I DO CALL IT because it is a rule violation and I do not selectively enforce the rules. I do not see that as a judgement call which is clearly altogether different. It is much easier to call a clearcut rule violation and remove the wind from a coach's arguement then to try to judge if a violoation MIGHT have an effect on a play, not make the call and then wait for the next incident to blow up in our face with no rule support. I do not have a crystal ball and will not assume anything.

It's simple, see the violation, call the violation - that is our job. Do not confuse judgement calls with rule enforcement. One thing is for sure, be consistent with the way you handle these issues. At least a coach (good or bad) can deal with consistency better perhaps better than trying to argue selective enforement.

[Edited by Robmoz on May 26th, 2004 at 02:02 PM]

I have already clarified several times that the foot IS over the line. Why are you talking about angles and shoe curvature?

I understand your opinion and respect refs who feel this way, but this post is not for you. I am speaking to refs who do selectively enforce, as the first post states.

Re: Judgment Call???
 

Don't call unless impacted the play? What about the lazy inbound that is made after a basket while the flow clearly has gone back down the court. Everyone in that end of the gym sees the violation, yet no impact on the "play", you let it go time and time again. Why, because you deemed it not necessary to the game? Puhleeeeeze, use judgement on judgement calls but call violations as they occur because THAT IS part of the game and I do not buy into the notion that such calls take away from the game. Do not start down a slippery slope of selective enforcement you will regret that you ever left your roots.

This is what many observers refer to as (pardon the indelicacy) "diarrhea of the mouth". The only thing that needs to be said when administering FTs is the number that will be shot.

As far as calling that toe on the line that doesn't affect the play, I like Camron's statement, "I've given your guys the benefit of the doubt too, Coach".

You are looking for one answer when there is several answers.
 

Why? Because you are worried about explaining something to a coach. That is why. And no matter what happen, that is at the very least my point.

Not sure who you are speaking to and really is not the point. You are asking everyone here that decides to read this post. This my answer is not just for you either. It is for those that think they need to let coaches dictate what we say to them or what we do not say to them.

No matter what you do, they are still going to ask. If you make the call, the other coach might have a question for you. If you feel compelled to say something all the time, then you will do more explaining than officiating. You are looking for a magic bullet, when there is no such thang.

Peace

Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Hmmmm, should I expound my "Big Deal" theory again? Nah, probably not.

Come on, you honestly believe that diarrhea of the mouth BS. The refs that don't communicate (read as friendly reminders to players)tend to be prima donas. Ask ANY player if they oppose such chatter and I don't think you'll get a single vote. Granted, I am not advocating colorful long-winded exchanges between refs and players/coaches... BUT to be a stoic, 2-3 word sentence speaking, Queen's guard, stonefaced official can cause you some other problems down the road. Perhaps it is just a matter of style. I respect what works for you but as for me, pass the Pepto, I got something to say.

...benefit of the DOUBT....where is the doubt? You saw it, no doubt, call it. Isn't that one of the purposes of the rules - eliminate the doubt? Come on man, don't buy into that selective enforcement style, it is flawed.

BTW Chuck, I still love your responses but I love a good debate amongst our peers. <smiles>

Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

There's a key difference here, Rob. The original post describes a player on the arc with his toe on the line. It did not affect the play at all.
The lazy throw-in violation after the basket does affect the play. It has allowed them to get the ball in more quickly.
If you're not calling it, Rut's first response is probably best. "I didn't see it that way."
It looks to me like the question was posed to try to convince those who wouldn't make the call to do so, out of fear that the coach may have seen it. Rut's point is simple. We don't alter our judgment based on the coach's opinions.

No, whether his foot is on the line isn't necessarily a judgment call. But whether it warrants a violation is a judgment call.

Final advice, do what the assignors want. If they want this nit-picked, nit-pick it. If they want judgment, use it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Quote:

Not sure why they would "chip away" in such cases?!? Not if they have any clue what is happening in the game.

I think you answered your own question.:cool:

Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Yes, the PC thing to do is appease your assignors for those who feel the need.

I will still strive towards excellence but will settle for a consistent comment from both coaches..."Good job ref!" in the event that I feel I am prostituting myself or being too self-critical.

Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

If the ball is in the neighborhood of where the violation occurs (such as your throw-in vioaltion), I have no issue with you saying it impacted the play. I might even think that the lane divider needs to be called where othres do not. Free country. But 3 point line, nowhere near the ball, toe on the line, not making a play - please tell me how that impacts the play of the game. One inch of floor space that distance from the basket won't change a thing, unless a player is trying to gain an unfair advantage.

Again, you can clearly call this - it is a technical violation of the rules. But I see no compelling need to do to blow the whistle. Obviously you do, but you have nothing other than the rule book in your back pocket to fall back on for making this call. Many fine experienced refs differ with this opinion of yours, and provide cogent reasons for their opinion. Feel free to ignore them. But a strictly by the book philosophy usually leads you just as far astray as one that completely ignores the fact that a book exists. Call what needs to be called to make the game fair. And be consistent.

It's always finding a proper balance that allows you to succeed in life. And making appropriate judgments consistently makes for a good referee.

You: Did I see what?!?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Your acerbic wit isn't conducive to a decent debate. Just FYI.

The fact is you work for your assignors. My assignors are officials with decades of experience and built up trust. It's not "PC" to officiate the way your boss wants it done. As for prostituting yourself, I'm not sure what you mean other than some sophomoric attempt to belittle those who disagree with you.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with how my assignor thinks I reffed the game than how the coaches think I did. So, you go on ahead and try to please both of the coaches and I'll try to please the guy who gives me games.

I think you guys have lost the whole point of the post. The poster didn't ask about a coach asking about something you disagree with. The post said that YOU see that the foot is on the line and you decide to pass on it. It wasn't a matter of you didn't think it was on the line. The foot was on the line, you saw it and you passed. Now the question is, after you pass on it and coach asks you about it, what do you say? It isn't a matter of a coach seeing something you didn't. You BOTH saw the SAME thing.

gsf
I don't think people generally missed the point. I think people are arguing over two things. If you pass, what do you say. And should you be in the position of passing anyway. Typical of most of our threads, the discussion has simply de-evolved (Are We Not Men?) from its original line of thought into other arguments.

On a free throw? I honestly do believe that "diarrhea of the mouth" is a fitting and apt term for what you advocate. I'm completely with Chuck on this one. There's no need at all for you to conduct a rules clinic on every FT. The lead simply saying the # of shots when he's administering FT's is the accepted mechanic, both in high school and college games. I've never heard of this particular mechanic being taught any other way, to be quite honest. You might warn a coupla players along the line if you feel that they specifically might be getting getting carried away in the blocking-out action, or maybe getting in a little quick, but there's absolutely no need for any generic warnings on every free throw for actions that haven't happened yet, and may never happen.

Who says we have to respond to the Coach at all??? Let him?her ask the question about that toe on the line - I certainly don't have to give them any response at all... that's an inconsequential part of the game - if they want to harp about that, let 'em...as Mick says - Get in, Get done, Get out.

And as far as big spiels before free throws, throw-ins, jump balls, or anything else - why??? Just gives more ammunition to someone to play the "he said" game and that's another headache no one needs...

Just nodding your head without saying ANYTHING to acknowledge to the coach that you heard him can be an appropriate response too. Silence has never, ever got me in trouble as far as I can remember.

On a free throw? I honestly do believe that "diarrhea of the mouth" is a fitting and apt term for what you advocate. I'm completely with Chuck on this one. There's no need at all for you to conduct a rules clinic on every FT. [/B][/QUOTE]

To clarify, I do not advocate this for every free throw and certainly do not consider it to be a rules clinic issue. Perhaps you are not comfortable communicating or maybe you are not very good at it (no offense intended). And yes, my experienced mentors over the years passed this trait to me, good or bad, it's what I do.

Robmoz
I think that JR is perfectly capable of communicating. He doesn't choose to waste words.

And just out of curiosity, how do you decide when to blab and when to administer a FT?

To clarify, I do not advocate this for every free throw and certainly do not consider it to be a rules clinic issue. Perhaps you are not comfortable communicating or maybe you are not very good at it (no offense intended). And yes, my experienced mentors over the years passed this trait to me, good or bad, it's what I do. [/B][/QUOTE]Well, I don't advocate it on ANY free throw. And seeing that I'm responsible for training, evaluating and assigning ALL of the officials in my area, I also don't think that I do not now, or ever, have really had any problems communicating with other officials. I can also tell you that I have talked this specific subject over with many other trainers and evaluators( including quite a few at the NCAA conference level), and I have never heard a single one ever advocate what you suggest. The general mechanic in use is exactly as Chuck pointed out. The administering official simply states the # of shots to be taken.

To be honest, I really don't think that you have a clue what you are talking about( no offense intended).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Acerbic, nice word, I did not intend to sound bitter though. I hope you did not mean to say FYI as opposed to IMO, afterall, a debate is about opinions or am I wrong again?

I do not try to please my assignors rather I am open to their critique and suggestions but recognize that there way is not the ONLY way and they do not dictate how I officiate. So you go ahead and please the guy that gives you games and perhaps you'll never know if your skills got you that dream assignment or your ability to please your assignor.

Not all prositutes work for money, that is what I meant by my sophmoric comment and I wanted to illustrate a point about sticking to ones ideas/methods/principles, is all.

I respect your comments Snaq, you've made your point and I've made mine.....

I have a problem with the way you started your post. First, telling anyone that says they would make the call that the "post is not for them” is inappropriate. It's a forum and even if you don't, I (as well as many others) appreciate the feedback.

The reality is, you're posted this for a fight. People chimed in with reasonable responses for the question you asked. Now, if you want to argue over philosophy about whether the call should be made or not, then I ask you, why wasn't it called.

Simple, when the violation occurred (as you have made clear that it did in fact occur) it was a violation. It is not called a violation until I have judged that it needs to be called.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES is a section before Rule 1 in the NFHS Rules Book. It does state that there should be no deviation from the rules. However, it also states, “The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play” and “it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation.”

Therefore, it is judgment.

And as for your original question… per the rules, there is nothing in there that says you owe him an explanation of your judgment or application of the rules. Period.

Romboz, I don't say anything except the number of throws. Reason, there may come a time later in the game where it is necessary to communicate more than that. I want those words to be heard, and not ignored.

To clarify, I do not advocate this for every free throw and certainly do not consider it to be a rules clinic issue. Perhaps you are not comfortable communicating or maybe you are not very good at it (no offense intended). And yes, my experienced mentors over the years passed this trait to me, good or bad, it's what I do. [/B][/QUOTE]


If you can't say your side in a few words, you will have a much bigger problem.

One, you should not feel the need to explain calls, if a coach or player asks a question, fine I'll answer. If they are making statements, I'm not going to explain ANYTHING.

Two, if you are getting into repeated "conversations" you are asking to have every call you make questioned.

Everyone has their own style, some are more talkative, some are not, but being confident, calm, and careful with your words does not make you unapproachable.

Bravo, footlocker, you have offered a nice comment. TY

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

No, I meant what I said. When someone loads their posts with sarcasm and biting humor, it makes from some great one liners and peps up the cheerleading squad, but it doesn't do anything for making your point with those who disagree with you. That's not debating, it's a one-liner competition that really only calls for responses directed towards "yo mamma."
You said in a different post that you like debate among "peers." If that's the case, I recommend stifling the wit a bit.

Frankly, I find the use of "IMO" to be unnecessary and redundant. ;)

Since they changed the rule, I've said 5 words on each free throw.

"Two (or one) shots. Let it hit."

I'll now reduce that to 2 words, since I agree that the last three are largely unnecessary unless I think the players are getting close to violations I don't want to call.

I think if you call a violation in grade 5 girls ball fine

Call it in College and you may be doing your last game

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

My point is that if the assignors don't want me watching the toes of the stationary players on the arc during a free throw because it's not affecting the game, it's not breaking my principals to abide by that.
You go ahead and worry about your principals, and you'll likely not have to worry about figuring out how you got the good assingments. Of course, if your assignors want it done your way, then you're in the same boat you think I am.

After your explanation, your prostitutes comment comes across as more juvinile than before. You illustrated nothing with it, except.... never mind.

You assume we are deviating from our principals, but my principals are not under attack here. My principals tell me that the spirit of the rules is not violated by a player not engaged in the play here.

First of all, when it comes to assignors, if they have particular calls or mechanics they like to have employed, I suggest working by their book. If you choose not to, you are the one that must live with the potential consequences.

Second, in todays world of electronic devices, more and more plays are caught on tape, thus subject to review. Because coaches' jobs (sizeable $) are on the line each and every play they are gaining a stronger voice when it comes to how we call games. As an aside, there was an official working a game at Kansas U. Coach Williams didn't care for a call, the referee gave an explanation which was met with, "you'll never work in this conference again." BTW, the ref didn't. So to say that coaches do not dictate the way we officiate is completely off base. Every year we get a Points of Emphasis delivered to us. Points of emphasis are developed by our Rules Committees, with input from coaches and AD's.

The play in question, is by definition, a rules infraction/violation, but so too was the T called in the NC State ACC semi final game (team delaying game ...). The calling official who was going to work the final, has been around for yeeeaaaarrrrssss, got sent home early instead.

I liken this to Shaq's free throw technique, he breaks the plane every time but never gets called for it.

Tastes great. Less filling. Tastes great. Less filling. Tastes great. Less filling. ad nauseum............................

footlocker, you da (wo)man. Where you been all my post?

JRut, I understand the "judgement" aspect now as well.

But here is why I started the post. I think that quick effective communication with the coach can be helpful. It isn't required or even necessary, but can be helpful.

I am soliciting advice for good things to do. I'm not soliciting advice about judgment, which is why I made the statement about excluding people from commenting. I'm wrong though, everyone can comment.

BUT, if you agree that it's a no-call, and the opposing coach asks you about it, what have you done and how did it work? I think I've got 5 suggestions. Any more?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Main Entry: 1pros·ti·tute
Pronunciation: 'präs-t&-"tüt, -"tyüt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -tut·ed; -tut·ing
Etymology: Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere, from pro- before + statuere to station -- more at PRO-, STATUTE
1 : to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money

From http://www.webster.com

sorry couldn't resist...if not for money wouldn't they be called another name?

Actually, on this board, to ask a simple, specific question and get five decent responses in four pages is pretty darn good! Next time I have a simple, specific question, I'll have you post it.

Tell them, the spirit and intent of the rule is to keep a player from getting an advantage, the player DID NOT gain an advantage coach.

You have three choices.
1) A rules clinic.
2) Smile and nod.
3) A quick, "I didn't see a violation." Or, even perhaps, "Did it really hurt your team coach?"

If he asks during a timeout, simply say, "No one was disadvantaged coach, I'd give you the same courtesy."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Snaqwells, I agree with your post. I'm just wondering why Robmoz was singled out for this when others do the same thing. I'm not going to name names but I think a lot of people that are on this board a lot should be able to see that others make posts that are a little rough around the edges. Some of these people have "friends" on this board that will come to their rescue to defend them having never met them face to face. I can see someone's posts and say to myself "I like their style" or whatever but I can't really speak up for them like I see on this board. The same goes for someone that might irritate me, the person that initially gets on your nerves could turn out to be one of your best friends when you get to know them. Good post, I just think it applies to us all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

tomegun,
Good points. There’s a subtle difference, though. Most of the time when it gets to that point, debate (I prefer discussion over debate) has ceased for various reasons. Sometimes one side is fed up and expresses that frustration/annoyance/fatigue/etc. Sometimes it just plain escalates to ad hominem.

The difference here is that there was an expressed interest in “debate,” but posts that seemed designed to generate laughs from a college dorm.

To me, that is the difference between having fun (making fun of Chuck or Jurassic), getting annoyed (BBAllCoach), getting overly heated (MTD), and attempts at legitimate discussion that are marred by sophomoric responses. If I didn’t think Rob was interested in discussion, I’d have probably left it alone and chalked it up to another fanboy or frustrated coach. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and offered my advice, FWIW.

If I respond to this type of situation at all, I usually say something along the lines of "Coach, I have more important things to watch for right now. Thanks for the help, though." And then move right along...and I must add that responding to a situation like this does not happen very often with me...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

That's the spirit Snaq!

I welcome all of your comments, consider them for their merit and intent, absorb them to best of my ability, respond when I feel the inclination to do so, but most of all I hope I never truly insult or offend anyone with my written word here. I enjoy the stimulating commentaries and spirited discussions...<humbly submitted>

Snaqwells, I didn't think what you said was really wrong. I just wish it was that way across the board. Although that isn't realistic, it makes me queasy when I see someone post "I'm sure Joe Blow wouldn't do that because he is a great official" or "Mr. Blow, I know you are good official because..." All this happens when you have never met the guy! I have been told that I question everything until I see it but come on! Anyone who has played ball, can read the rulebook, can read the threads on this forum and type can seem to be an official in the know.

One of my best friends has cussed me out before in public and private about something I did on the court, something I didn't do on the court or for having a "yeah but" attitude. He didn't do it for sport, he did it for me. In life that might not be the best approach but officiating is already something where we are going to hear the negative more than the positive. If the negative is meant to work out a situation or help then it needs to be said. I can accept the critism if some think this point of view is wrong but that is OK. See, if I was always right, like some think they are, then I would have this whole officiating thing solved and I would be doing the Laker game tonight. :D

Robmoz, what part of the country are you from?

The Motor City....and you?

Well, I don't advocate it on ANY free throw. And seeing that I'm responsible for training, evaluating and assigning ALL of the officials in my area, I also don't think that I do not now, or ever, have really had any problems communicating with other officials. I can also tell you that I have talked this specific subject over with many other trainers and evaluators( including quite a few at the NCAA conference level), and I have never heard a single one ever advocate what you suggest. The general mechanic in use is exactly as Chuck pointed out. The administering official simply states the # of shots to be taken.

To be honest, I really don't think that you have a clue what you are talking about( no offense intended). [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that too often that for the sake of "communicating" we take too long to put the ball back in play. I think this is why evaluators hate it, is that it takes too long and it slows things down. I believe in preventive officiating. If I am lead as I tell players 1 shot and as I am backing up to bounce ball I may say something like "wait until it hits" or "straight in-straight up" It never interferes with the game or its flow, but still reminds players if they are getting close to doing something....

Robmoz, I live in the DC area. I have a friend that lives in Detroit. He just moved there from Vegas last year.

A guy that I really like who has been on the court for many years has a fairly common response to these kinds of questions -- "it was real close coach." I think this is his way of saying "I heard you coach and you're not nuts," but at the same time it has the advantage of not being a white lie, being vague enough to suggest that he took a pass notwithstanding seeing a violation, but not admitting that he did so.

It's pretty rare to see a coach press it after this response.

Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach [B If the ball is in the neighborhood of where the violation occurs (such as your throw-in vioaltion), I have no issue with you saying it impacted the play. I might even think that the lane divider needs to be called where othres do not. Free country. But 3 point line, nowhere near the ball, toe on the line, not making a play - please tell me how that impacts the play of the game. One inch of floor space that distance from the basket won't change a thing, unless a player is trying to gain an unfair advantage.

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.

[Edited by oc on May 27th, 2004 at 09:23 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Judgment Call???
 

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):
<LI>looked like what they claimed, but didn't have a good look or partner had a better angle.
<LI>Agree with what they saw but felt it was no advantage or relevant to the game
<LI>Didn't see it the way they saw it.
<LI>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.

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.

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.

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