Are refs afraid to make tough calls?

[zebraman]

Interesting article this month about officials who give too many warnings and never make the tough call. It talks about the Larry Rose situation that was discussed here a few months back (Rose gave a T to N.C. State for a team manager being on the floor wiping up moisture during play - he had warned them several times) and questions his assignor (Fred Barakat) for not backing him for making the correct, tough call. Agree or disagree, the article is a good read.

Z

[Edited by Brad on Jul 30th, 2004 at 09:59 AM]

[Hartsy]

Seems to me that most overlook a lot of things that could be penalized routinely, like the incident you mentioned. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing. Usually, it isn't a big deal I suppose.

Similar to setting the tone of play by how we call fouls in the early going, maybe we should watch some of the other things early, too.

My peeve is coaches not having the team ready to go at the end of a time out. Beginning the 5 second count with the ball on the floor usually fixes that for the remainder of the game. I've never put the ball in the hands of a team after a TO before the defense is ready, but I suppose it could be done. Imagine that one.

If they didn't have 5 inside the boundary lines when play began, they would play with what they had, or suffer the illegal sub T.

JH

[TigerBball]

If you only do the 5 count with ball on the floor and never put the ball in play when the D is late, you are only concerned about the offense getting out of a time-out. Seems like you should either do both, or neither, but to only do one doesn't seem right.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hartsy
I've never put the ball in the hands of a team after a TO before the defense is ready, but I suppose it could be done. Imagine that one.

If they didn't have 5 inside the boundary lines when play began, they would play with what they had, or suffer the illegal sub T.

I've handed the ball to the offense when the defense wasn't out yet. I didn't T them for the last player coming onto the floor after the ball was inbounded. The easy lay-up was punishment enough, I thought.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I didn't T them for the last player coming onto the floor after the ball was inbounded. The easy lay-up was punishment enough, I thought.

That's a damn good thought, if you want to keep a decent schedule.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Hartsy

If they didn't have 5 inside the boundary lines when play began, they would play with what they had, or suffer the illegal sub T.

JH

Hartsy,
I hope that you are kidding and know that this is not correct.

All that is said in the rules is: 10-1-9 "A team shall not: ...Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."
This and 7-5-1 are the only applicable rules for this situation.

First, notice that there is no requirement to be on the inbounds side of the boundary line when the ball becomes live. Secondly, it says "approximately the same time." So if 4 players are inbounds when you make the ball live, and the fifth follows immediately thereafter, the rules allow this.
In fact, all five could wait until the opponents score and then enter the court together and it would be legal.

According to 7-5-1c, if the team stayed on the bench the whole time, they would not receive a technical foul until they first violated on the throw-in following the opponents goal, the opponents inbounded and scored again, and now they have another throw-in opportunity and they are continuing to delay.

Lastly, the idea of an illegal substitution has nothing to do with this play, since all of these five team members are still players during the time-out and do not need to enter the game as substitutes. 4-34 provides the definitions of players, substitutes, team members, and bench personnel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

All that is said in the rules is: 10-1-9 "A team shall not: ...Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."

First, notice that there is no requirement to be on the inbounds side of the boundary line when the ball becomes live. Secondly, it says "approximately the same time." So if 4 players are inbounds when you make the ball live, and the fifth follows immediately thereafter, the rules allow this.
In fact, all five could wait until the opponents score and then enter the court together and it would be legal.

Disagree. The rules DO NOT allow this. You're making up your own interpretation again, instead of using the one that we already have available. Bad Nevada! Bad, bad Nevada! See casebook play 10.1.9, and note the language- "A technical foul is IMMEDIATELY charged to team B for failure to have ALL players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. While it is true the ENTIRE team may be off-court while the procedure is being used, once a team responds, ALL players must enter the court at approximately the same time". "All" means "all", not four! To try and call it your way is "stoopid", to use one of your own terms. We'd just end up arguing whether "approximately" meant a 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5second etc. lag before a T could be called. That's why "all" was used. It's nice and un-ambiguous. "All" means 5, and "approximately" means now! If you count 'em, and they've only got 4 out there, then they're screwed( to use the rule book term) when the 5th player shows up. Of course, whether you wanna call this play strictly if one player does happen to come back on just a l'il bit later than his teammates is a whole 'nother matter, imo.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 28th, 2004 at 08:30 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Oh JR, I am beginning to think that you disagree with anything that I write just on principle.
I am not making up my own interpretation; I am simply reading the plain language of the rule. I was pointing out that Hartsy is the one who is putting his own criterion into the rule. He is the one who wrote that the five players had to be "inside the boundary lines when play began." I merely pointed out to him that there is no such requirement. In fact, as you acknowledged 10.1.9 says, "While it is true the entire team may be off the court while the procedure is being used," so just the opposite of what Hartsy wrote is true.
I also never advocated allowing a team to play with 4 for a significant amount of time. What I wrote was, "So if 4 players are inbounds when you make the ball live, and the fifth follows immediately thereafter, the rules allow this."
You really went out of your way to twist this simple statement. It is true and I'll stand behind it.
But I'll go ahead and clarify the example I gave just for you: 4 players happen to be inbounds right next to the bench when the official administers the throw-in, the fifth player who was standing OOB at that time follows the rest of his team onto the court IMMEDIATELY. He is perhaps only one step behind them.
This example was crafted to highlight the fact that the OOB boundary has nothing to do with the rule and Hartsy should not use that line as indicative of a T.
Of course, I do agree that if this fifth player delays before following the rest of his teammates, it is a technical foul. However, it is still not an "illegal sub T" as Hartsy wrote, but a team technical foul for breaking 10-1-9.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. How long of a delay is necessary before a T should be called.
I don't contest your belief that "all players" means all five; that seems straightforward. However, I will take issue with your ""approximately" means now!" statement. We both know that it doesn't. I'd provide a dictionary definition here, but Dan would call that pedantic.

Later you wrote, "Of course, whether you wanna call this play strictly if one player does happen to come back on just a l'il bit later than his teammates is a whole 'nother matter, imo." I consider this to be a much more reasonable thought.
I thought of a good way to make a decision on this.
Noting that these same time-qualifying words also appear in the double foul rule 4-19-7, I would advocate that an official judge "at approximately the same time" for a team reentering the court the same way he would understand those words for a double foul.
In other words, if the time lag is close enough that an official would consider two fouls happening over that time span to constiture a double foul, then one should consider the team's reentry legal. If the fouls would have to be separate, then so is the reentry; thus warranting the T.

Based on your answers to some other posts, you seem to be quite a proponent of calling double fouls or double technical fouls in many situations when the players mix it up with each other, so I'll guess that you have a good feel for judging this time frame and might even like the idea of applying it to the reentry requirement.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Oh JR, I am beginning to think that you disagree with anything that I write just on principle.

Agree.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree.

Don't take it personal, JR's one of them pedantic cynics we read about in the papers.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


You're making up your own interpretation again, instead of using the one that we already have available. Bad Nevada! Bad, bad Nevada! See casebook play 10.1.9, and note the language- "A technical foul is IMMEDIATELY charged to team B for failure to have ALL players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. While it is true the ENTIRE team may be off-court while the procedure is being used, once a team responds, ALL players must enter the court at approximately the same time".

JR, have you had the inclination to call a T in a game for this, ever? If so, in retrospect, do you feel that you could have managed the game differently to avoid the T situation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Robmoz

JR, have you had the inclination to call a T in a game for this, ever? If so, in retrospect, do you feel that you could have managed the game differently to avoid the T situation?

Rob, I'm not big on T's like these. If I can avoid 'em, fine. To answer your question though, I don't think that I've ever been in a situation like this where I really HAD to call the T. I've used the "resuming play" procedure many times over the years, usually because a coach has forced me into it by ignoring explicit warnings to get his team out of the huddle. That means that I have put the ball on the floor if team A is late for their throw-in, or I've given the ball to team A for their throw-in if B was still in their huddle and ignoring us. If either team was on the way though, then I will wait for them. However, I can't remember ever being in a situation where the other team didn't rush back on the floor- together mostly- as soon as they figured out that the "resuming play" procedure had started. If that team hadn't come back on the floor according to the procedures laid out in the book though,then yes, I would have T'd them up for delay. Also, if only 4 came on and started playing, and the 5th player was definitely late joining them, I don't think that you have any choice but to hand out the T. It's just too obvious to everyone in the gym. What can you do differently? I really don't know. You warn and warn sometimes, and they just ignore you. They more or less force you to use the "resuming play" procedure. Once is usually enough.

[JRutledge]

Making the tough call is what I do. But just like anything, the possible backlash is always in the back of my mind. Not everyone is going to go along with calling things always the right way. And I am not talking about the coaches or the fans.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Rob, I'm not big on T's like these. If I can avoid 'em, fine. To answer your question though, I don't think that I've ever been in a situation like this where I really HAD to call the T. I've used the "resuming play" procedure many times over the years, usually because a coach has forced me into it by ignoring explicit warnings to get his team out of the huddle. That means that I have put the ball on the floor if team A is late for their throw-in, or I've given the ball to team A for their throw-in if B was still in their huddle and ignoring us.

This seems like a good time to tell my great "resuming play procedure" story. When my daughter was playing, before I was reffing, I saw this happen. It was a play-off game, the middle of the third quarter, and my daughter's team (Team A) was behind by 15 or so. The other team was feeling pretty good, since they hadn't expected to have an easy time. "We" had the ball, threw it out of bounds, and "our" coach called a time-out. Team B was going to get the ball in their backcourt, on the sideline about halfway between the division line and the top of the 3-point circle. The 45-second warning horn sounded, refs made their little noises, 60 seconds sounded, no one came out of the huddle. Team B was kinda partying -- laughing and goofing off. Team A was working hard, trying to find a way to make a comeback. Refs whistled again, still no response. Finally, the one ref put the ball down and started counting. He got clear to 5, blew the whistle, picked up the ball, and shouted "White ball!!" STILL no coe came out of the huddle! So he put the ball down again, and started counting. By this time, one clever little player on Team A realized what was going on, grabbed a teammate and hustled across the floor. She stepped out, grabbed the ball, passed it inbounds to the teammate, who shot an easy three points. Coach B went postal, raced out onto the floor screaming at the top of his lungs, and WHACK! Team A shot, and hit, two free throws, and got the ball back. Coach B now strted sulking and held his girls from coming back onto the floor. Team A gets the ball out of bounds, passed it in from the division line, and hit another easy three points. Just like that, an eight point swing in fortune. Team B still won in the end, but those of us who were partial to Team A didn't even care. We'd gotten ours!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

This seems like a good time to tell my great "resuming play procedure" story. When my daughter was playing, before I was reffing, I saw this happen. It was a play-off game, the middle of the third quarter, and my daughter's team (Team A) was behind by 15 or so. The other team was feeling pretty good, since they hadn't expected to have an easy time. "We" had the ball, threw it out of bounds, and "our" coach called a time-out. Team B was going to get the ball in their backcourt, on the sideline about halfway between the division line and the top of the 3-point circle. The 45-second warning horn sounded, refs made their little noises, 60 seconds sounded, no one came out of the huddle. Team B was kinda partying -- laughing and goofing off. Team A was working hard, trying to find a way to make a comeback. Refs whistled again, still no response. Finally, the one ref put the ball down and started counting. He got clear to 5, blew the whistle, picked up the ball, and shouted "White ball!!" STILL no coe came out of the huddle! So he put the ball down again, and started counting. By this time, one clever little player on Team A realized what was going on, grabbed a teammate and hustled across the floor. She stepped out, grabbed the ball, passed it inbounds to the teammate, who shot an easy three points. Coach B went postal, raced out onto the floor screaming at the top of his lungs, and WHACK! Team A shot, and hit, two free throws, and got the ball back. Coach B now strted sulking and held his girls from coming back onto the floor. Team A gets the ball out of bounds, passed it in from the division line, and hit another easy three points. Just like that, an eight point swing in fortune. Team B still won in the end, but those of us who were partial to Team A didn't even care. We'd gotten ours!

Fans.

BTW, good story.