In last night's Niagra/Providence game, a Niagra player lost control of the ball near the sideline. As he was trying to retrieve it he tapped the ball and then he stepped out of bounds. The announcer, Jay Bilas, said he was not allowed to come back in bounds and gain possession of the ball. Is this not a basketball myth, or am I missing something?

The NCAA has added a section to Rule 9 (Violations) this year that prohibits a person from being the first to touch the ball after going OOB of his/her own volition.

So if the official determined that the player went OOB on purpose, it would be a violation for him to come back inbounds and continue his dribble. If his momentum took him OOB, then he's still allowed to come back and retrieve the ball.

these announcers need to get their tongue under control. You can regularly hear them make negative comments about calls made by the officials, and this goes with all sports. Once the play is reviewed, they are wrong as often as they are right, but the way they sometimes carry on does not show any sportsmanship or support to the officiating crew. They consistantly show their ingorance to the rules or the spirit of the rule.

Last nights Missouri vs Houston game, the announcer on the radio carried on about whether or not a Houston player was shooting or not when he got fouled. Just one time I would love to see the officials stop the game to yell at a coach when one of his players misses a free throw.

I love it Chris! I would be run out of Illinois if I took the opportunity to holler at a kid when he misses a layup, or when a coach blows a situation, "Boy, you really suck!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Last night, private school game, heard the visiting coach a couple of times:

"That's a foul, ref!"

"That's a foul, ref!"

After the third time he said it, we had a little break in the action. I replied, "Coach, you really need to get out of this man to man and go zone, 1-3-1. And I'd run #3 off a baseline screen to get her open." He said, "What?" I replied,"Well, you're helping me officiate. I thought I'd help you coach."

That was the last I heard from him. ;)

Classic

re:
 

BktBallRef,

The patent isn't pending on that comeback is it? I might use it here and call it my own.

You only add fuel to the fire by making that (and other) sarcastic comments back to coaches. I thouroughly understand the temptation of trying to get the last word in on a knucklehead coach, but from the standpoint of professionalism, comments such as these are UNACCEPTABLE!!!
I believe if we as officials do not hold ourselves to higher standards than the coaches, then we are no better. I for one would like to think I handle these situations with dignity and professionalism. I just don't think comments such as these help the game or our relationship with the players or the coaches. Like I said earlier I fully understand the tempatation of firing back a quick zinger at a coach. I just think it is the wrong thing to do. Sooner or later the coach will try to zing you back...and the escalation begins.
Silence can never be misquoted...it is a good motto to go by...saves a lot of grief in the long run.

Mike, thanks for your keen insight. I think most of us would love to do this but understand the reprocussions. We're just bantering among the boys. If BBR really did it and got away with it, then I chalk one up for the Refs. If it would of backfired on him then I guess he jumped on a grenade for the team.

Davism for this situation: "Coach, let's trade places. You come out here on the floor and ref, and I'll sit on the bench and act like a jackass."

Why don't you go take a pill that allows you to have a sense of humor?

a sense of humor is one thing, but deliberately bating a coach with a sarcastic remark is something different. Officiating is an art not a science. I believe there is a place for humor in the arsenal of an official. It is an important tool when used in the proper circumstances. Getting the last sarcastic word in is not in my opinion the right way to use humor as an official. It is healthy to disagree about such issues, for there is no correct answer, and officials everywhere will choose how and when and what to say in the heat of battle. Discussions such as these help officials to decide for themselves which is the best way to respond to coaches in the heat of the battle. Everyone must decide what works for them under tough circumstances. I was merely pointing out that one must be careful what is said, how it is said, and when it is said.
There are so many variables involved here. What is your relationship with the coach? the commisioner? the AD of the school? (when the coach complains about inappropriate remarks) do you want the reputation among coaches and AD's as a smart-a**? do you care? should you care? something to think about.....we all choose our own paths!!

I like BBR's approach. Okay, some may find his words a tad sarcastic. If you believe it was, certainly you have to admit that as sarcasm goes, it's pretty mild and directed at the behavior, not the person.

But his basic technique is pretty sound. He approaches the coach during a break, rather than responding immediately to the irritant. In other words, it's a considered response rather than a reaction. He most likely did it quietly, one-on-one with the coach. He uses a touch of humor to say what he's got to say. He's non-confrontational about it. He's not looking to unload a zinger or to get the last word. He keeps the stop sign in his pocket in case he needs it later. Most importantly, it works. What's not to like?

I agree with you and I disagree with you. BBR will tell you that their are times when one can get away with what he said and times where one cannot get aways with what he said.

I doubt if I would ever make that comment during a H.S. varsity or college game, but at the jr. varsity level and below and AAU, YBOA, and etc. competition I would probably use such a line. One has to remember to pick your battles carefully.

MTD, Sr.

I agree with you and I disagree with you. BBR will tell you that their are times when one can get away with what he said and times where one cannot get aways with what he said.

I doubt if I would ever make that comment during a H.S. varsity or college game, but at the jr. varsity level and below and AAU, YBOA, and etc. competition I would probably use such a line. One has to remember to pick your battles carefully.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]

Precisely. Choose your battles and your opponents wisely.
I've never done it but I've heard the story of a top official in area using this one: ASStant Coach gets up and starts fussing about a call. Ref to Head Coach: you need to tell your bus drive to sit down and be quiet. I'm not where I could pull that one off but sure do appreciate that he was able to. Chalk one up for the Refs.

Getting back to the original game in question (Niagra vs Providence), I noticed that one of the Providence players had white tape across the top of both ears. Not being a college official, I don't know if there are different rules regarding this. I assumed (I know), that it may have been covering ear studs. Anyone else notice this?

IF the tape was covering ear studs, the jewelry should have been removed.

I watched it quite a while trying to see what it might be. Most ear studs and worn in the lobe (I think), but the tape was at the top of the ear. I have been told by my son that studs in the top of the ear are more painful than in the lobe. I told him why have them if they are painful in any part of the ear -- btw, he doesn't wear studs.

That "white tape" across the top of both ears were hearing aids.

Hearing aids.
 

I saw the hearing aids. I see no reason to not allow those.

Peace

Chuck, where did you get this from? I'm not disagreeing with you because I thought this was correct also. However, I was told different after my game on Saturday when I didn't call it. A player made a good steal and his momentum took him out of bounds. He hustled right back in and shot a layup. The observer was also the supervisor for this game. He also happens to be a ref, a ref that has been to the final four the last two years. So, I didn't argue at all. Maybe I thought this because at the NCAA clinic, in the rule book and other places the only thing I heard discussed in relation to this rule was concerning the double screen and the player going out of bounds to use the screen. Just curious to know if you have seen this in print from the NCAA.

As far as the comments to the coach, I don't think it should be encouraged. It seemed to work out in this situation but what about the coach that really turns it on after this is said. His/her main basis for continued banter could be "you started it." It could be tough to give a T after this. Also, we should think about in a tough game, with an evaluator within earshot would you say the same thing to a coach. Or, at a camp where you are trying to get hired would you say it. That might be extreme but habits and ways to deal with coaches are learned at every level and every game.

Well, the new NCAA rule specifically says that it's illegal to go OOB of your "own volition". Since your momemtum is a matter of physics and not volition, I have to conclude that it's not prohibited by the rule. And since there's no other rule that prohibits being the first to touch the ball after being OOB, I have to conclude that it's legal.

Course, I've never been to the Final Four. . .

That thought crossed my mind, but I guess I was thinking about them being behind the ear rather than on top.

That doesn't make a difference to me. I guess I put that in the post to show that in my position I wasn't going to argue or debate. I didn't make the call because I agree with your logic and I still do. Now that I've looked up the definition of volition I agree with you even more. The definition is "The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision." So I'm sitting here thinking that it needs to be spelled out better or more examples should have been presented other than the double screen example. That example would fit the definition of "own volition." I'm a newbie in another conference that the supervisor/ref is in. If could become a delicate situation.

When this NCAA change was announced I immediately said that it was vague and unclear. The wording makes it seem like what Jay Bilas said is right. (Can't be the first to touch after being OOB.) While I understand that the NCAA wanted to change the rule so that going OOB was penalized with only a violation instead of a T, as in NFHS play, I can't believe that they intended to negate good hustle plays.

I'll add that an experienced DII guy stated in his pregame in CA this weekend that there was a new rule making it a violation to go out of bounds and come back in and be the first to touch the ball. When I brought up the own volition language, he said that we would have to make a decision and if the player is forced out just make sure that we have a foul. This makes me think that even the conference rules interpreters are unclear on the scope of the new rule.