I went to a very good camp this past weekend with evaluators from various levels. I don't really want to mention the name of the camp or the evaluators so it can't be said that I was dropping names.
Anyway, many topics were covered in this camp including post play, hand checking, fitness and perception to name a (very) few. The things covered the most were game management, angles (position adjustments) and game interrupters. Besides the normal game management buzz words, I think the campers took away using one's personality to work through certain situations. To go along with game management, knowing the clock at all times was stressed.
Getting angles, by constantly adjusting our position is needed, was also stressed. One step to the right or left really makes a big difference. IMO now more than ever we have been given more freedom to move, within reason, to get the best look at plays within our primaries. Certain guys at high(est) levels passed on tricks such as moving according to if a player is right-handed, left-handed, spins the the left or spins to the right to determine if we move left or right. Also, sometimes it is best to stay put and the play will open up for us.
Game interrupters is a new term for me but I've heard it several times this summer. It is simply not calling a foul that isn't needed to interrupt the game. It could sound simple/stupid until a game interrupter is pointed out.
During this camp and the one I attended previous the best part might be the delivery of this information. It wasn't delivered in a manner to suggest that we (all officials) don't have a clue and get plays wrong. It was delivered to train/mentor and help with consistently being in the right place to make a decision. The decision is what was graded whether it was a call or no call.
The environment was as relaxed as it could get considering the level of talent on the court, the people in the stands and the evaluators. Good stuff, really good stuff.

A "game interrupter" is just a call- any call- that doesn't really affect the game. The concept has been around forever- ala 3 seconds. Someone may give it a new or different label every 5-10 years or so, but nothing really changes.

Correct and on the east coast that is the current name. I also think it must be applied differently now than it was 10 years ago due to the strength and speed of the players. Contact that would change a player's Speed Balance Quickness and Rhythm (SBQR) 5 or 10 years ago doesn't prevent the player from going from A to B in many cases today.

Tomegun:

Maybe next year I will be able to attend this "Blank camp". I spoke with another camper who attended this camp and spoke very highly of it.

Yeah, I wanted to go to "blank" camp too. But I lost the entry form. I was really looking forward to hearing "blank" talk. Not to mention the incredible experience of "blank" & "blank" from conference "blank.":)

I'm trying to remember if I went to this camp, but I'm just drawing a blank.

There are some who might say this type of thinking has led to the rough play we see today. Like for instance, the NCAA.

You think so Dan? You think the NCAA wants us to call fouls on contact that doesn't slow a player down, that doesn't put him off balance, or that doesn't take away his first step?

Seems to me if none of that happened, then the defense hasn't gained any advantage with the contact. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point.

Dan may be right. This philosophy does not cause or encourage rough play, but officials attempt to look good by passing on a lot of calls, some of which need to be made. Heck, I've done it.

I went to the "blank" camp a few years ago. I forgot how much the entry fee was, so I wrote a blank cheque.

That may happen, Luther, but as you say, that's not the fault of the philosophy. If it needs to be called then call it. If the offensive player's SBQ is affected, then call it.

I think I'm just missing Dan's point. It's late and I'm probably already asleep. :)

I would have to disagree with this line of thinking.

I will remove the blank. The camp was the Nike invitational camp ran by the ACC supervisor with the SEC and NBA supervisors in attendance. We broke down tape as a group for a couple of games. One of the games we watched was the ACC final with two of the three officials in the room. The philosophy of SBQ and rough play are kept distinctly different.

An example of rough play would be a post player without the ball getting dislodged with a knee or two hands that is not called. There was a game like this and the evaluator stressed that there should have been fouls called. There were several games where the evaluators said there should have been more fouls called in the post. There was also a game where the offensive player with the ball was pushed in the back with two hands and still completed the basket (the defender actually pushed him towards the hoop). This led to some trash talk after the score. The evaluator said this should of at least been an intentional foul.

On the other hand, there were several "and ones" called that the evaluators thought should have been passed on. Also situations where they thought a delayed whistle would have allowed the play to finish without a foul due to the end result being a basket was scored or the player was allowed to go where they intended or pass the ball.

At this level of camps, you would (I would at least) think that it would be a "show me what you got" mentality. We had to do that with the added benefit of being taught a lot of the small things by some of the best officials on the East coast both college and pro. It was great experience and I felt fortunate to be there.

My point is that to say players these days can absorb more contact than 5 years ago only results in an increasing level of contact over time. You think 5 years from now we won't be saying the same thing?

If you look at the ncaa poe over the last few years you might see why I said they agree.

This is an interesting topic. On one hand, there is a school that says pass on the small stuff. But won't players get to a point that if they feel the referee is not protecting them, they will start protecting themselves, so the small stuff moves up a notch to chippie play, which then escalates to retaliation, which leads to fights? The "for want of a nail.." syndrome. On the other hand, I don't want to be blowing the whistle all night for every perceived foul. How do you experienced refs strike a balance?

Frank, I don't mean this the way it could come across in type. The simple answer to your question is Game Management. There is a game within the game and we must manage this. It should never get to the point of retaliation but sometimes we, myself included, do not manage the game properly and things happen.