the more they take. This may be a stretch, but I think some of the tiny things that are put under the microscope
on this forum are the root of a larger problem. When we talk about things like 0&00 that is one thing. I would like to see some of the specifics removed from the book and left under the 2-3 blanket. BUT, more and more things are entering the category: You just don't call that. The three second rule is the punch line in a hundred jokes. The traveling rule is being ripped to shreds every night.
When the defender was over the sideline up to his armpits and I gave a warning immediately followed by a T my assignor said "Technically, you were right, but don't make any more 'two bit' calls." Recently at a VB game on an out-of-bounds play A1 ran around a screen, 10-15 feet outside the sideline, and then reentered the court. Naturally, no call. I asked a coach friend if he was even aware of this rule. He said that he sorta knew it was a rule but only (insert your favorite "picky" official's name here) would make that call.

Where does it end?

When an assignor says, "Don't call that" it's a whole different thing from when a coach says, "Only so-and-so would call that."

The main problem is the NBA. In the NBA, the rules are there to make the game more entertaining. The rest of us play under rules that are there to define the Game of Basketball. There are variations of this around the country, and from middle school to college, but most people don't understand that these variations are minor compared to the fundamental differences between the NBA and Everybody Else.

So your assignor is discussing a variation between how he wants boundary plane violations called, as opposed to how that rule is written in the NFHS rule book.

The coach you were talking to was seeing basketball as entertainment, and wanted to keep the "Wow" factor, where fans go, "Ooo, ah, great play!"

I disagree with your assignor on how he wants the boundary plane violations and T's called, but it's his perogative to dictate the tone in the games he assigns.

The coach, on the other hand, isn't talking about a Game, he's talking about what gives him that little flutter of thrill. His opinions should have no weight at all.

I've always said this. Tonight on Sportscenter they showed a Vince Carter "highlight" and invited us to count the steps with them. Pick up the ball, 180 spin move, 1,2, lean toward the basket, 3,4, and up with the shot.
The call? Tweet! And one!

I'll give you my two cents on the warning followed by the T. I'm doing a V game with a fairly inexperienced partner a month or so ago. He calls a plane warning violation on an throw-in. No problem. I see that he isn't going to go over to the table to tell the scorer to right it in the book so I put my hand up and go over there. Takes about 15 seconds and I'm back at my spot and give my partner the nod to inbound. Defensive player violates the plane again and my partner gives a T. Correct by rule. After the game, I ask my partner this question. "What did you say to the defender while I was at the table?" His answer is "nothing." To me, that's a COMPLETELY preventable technical foul. All he had to do was tell the defender that it would be a technical foul if they did it again and that their coach would probably be pretty unhappy with them. Maybe that's what your assignor was getting at.

Z

Good point, Zebe. I always wave my arm up and down above the boundary line, and say, "Glass wall". And then do it on the next few in-bounds.

It seems that this year, everytime a player takes a shot, somebody somewhere says And 1. A fan, coach, player, another fan. Wide open layup, nobody even in the same county and someone says And 1. What's worse is the "come on Ref- that's And 1". I think the defination for And 1 has evolved into multiple meanings depending on who says it.

Good advice to be sure. I usually do pretty much the same thing. In this case the action took place on the sideline right in front of the offending team's bench, right at the end of the scorer's table. When I gave the warning, I expected the coach to complain about that. (mumble, mumble,
Mickey Mouse crap, etc. etc.) Instead, he nodded his head and said, Yeah, that's right. Back up so and so, or straight up so and so, or whatever. When I gave the warning at the table the player and the coach were both just a few feet away and I made a point of turning and facing back in their direction. "Warning on black for a plane violation. The next one will result in a technical foul." I thought the kid got it. He started out backed off the line a bit. On the count of 2 or so he stepped back up with his toes right at the line and leaning forward with his arms extended out front. What else could I do? The coach told me later that the kid did not know what the call was until it was explained to him after the game. He was totally unaware of this rule. Whose fault is this? This kid is a senior in high school and has never even seen this call, so apparently it is on the list of "You just don't call that." If that's the way things are, fine. But somebody needs to give me a copy of that list.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
[B]I disagree.

Any coach, any good coach anyways, wants to win. Winning is their "flutter of thrill" (I'm assuming coaches above some level btw). One key to winning is knowng what things can & can't be done on the court. Consistency. If *EVERYONE* called the T for reaching over then the coach would not say "Oh, only Chuck calls it that way". He would say "That never happens to me, I coach my team to defend a throw-in without reaching in".

BV game last night. Early in the game the offensive team is setting an off the ball screen. Player A from the offense attempts to move open for the pass by the screen. Player B from the defense who was guarding him grabs his shirt to prevent him from moving right in front of me!! TOOT! I called flagrant on B. Coach was wondering why, thinking maybe he cussed or something. I told him why and that it's in the rules. He countered by saying it didn't affect the play why call it. I say, doesn't matter, it's still the rule and I walked away. Gotta let'em know who's boss right away.

You kicked a kid out of the game because he held onto a guy's shirt? Wow. That's maybe an intentional foul, but I can't see kicking a kid out of the game for that.

SECTION 7 OFFICIALS' GENERAL DUTIES
The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules.

I agree. Flagrent sounds rather harsh - but your call.
ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

ART. 4 . . . A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

Sorry I meant to say intentional which is what I called. Typo on my part. No I didn't kick him out of the game. But his coach took him out and I think sat him the rest of the first half (this happened in the first minute of the game)and likely ripped him a new one at halftime.

So grabbing the shirt to keep a guy from moving is an intentional foul. Grabbing the shirt then punching the kid is flagrant. See the difference? There endeth the lesson. :)

Comprende~

Grabbing a shirt is most definitely NOT an flagrant. I'd even have a hard time calling it an intentional unless it is on a play like a breakaway where the offended looses a completely unobstructed layup. Coming off of a screen, I'd think a standard hodling foul would be best. Why have the holding foul at all if grabbing someone is an intentional.

What's the difference between grabbing someone's shirt to keep them from moving and wrapping your arms around someone's body? I'm talking about a blatant grabbing, not just an accidental grab of the shirt and quickly letting go.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker Any coach, any good coach anyways, wants to win. Winning is their "flutter of thrill" (I'm assuming coaches above some level btw).

I think for the situation posted originally, you're assuming too much. That coach wasn't saying how he wants the game called to make a good game, and because he knows the rules, and wants them enforced. He's implying that he doesn't want it called on his team, because he knows how to get an advantage out of it. If the other team got away with it, he'd be all over the refs about it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Originally posted by rainmaker Any coach, any good coach anyways, wants to win. Winning is their "flutter of thrill" (I'm assuming coaches above some level btw). I think for the situation posted originally, you're assuming too much. That coach wasn't saying how he wants the game called to make a good game, and because he knows the rules, and wants them enforced.

That's exactly what I'm saying he's not concerned with.

He's concerned with winning. Hard to win if you can't predict how the game will be called.

2 cents again
 

Some of us older guys have suffered the pains of the mistakes I have seen in this thread. I will say that with a little word spoken here and there, one can prevent or at least give one an out if a player commits one of these acts.

Inbounding with pressure:

I always inform the player if it is a spot throw-in or if he has the baseline to run. For the defensive player applying pressure, I always tell him or her not to reach over, i.e. break the plane. Now, if either violates, I feel I have done my part in attempting to prevent an unwanted violation by either team.

Shirt pulling:

This is a pet peeve of mine, especially in close games with under a minute to play. Not that I won't call it earlier, but just that this is when it usually occurs. If I am the non inbounding official, I always approach the lineup and verbally state, "do not hold or pull a players shirt." Again, if a player then proceeds to pull a shirt as his player is coming off a pick for example, I feel perfectly justified in awarding an intentional foul since there was no intent whatsoever to make a play for the ball.

If the coach goes ballistic, at least I can tell him I warned the players against pulling or grabbing anothers shirt.

One thing though, and that is I have to see the shirt pulled away from the body, and I'm sure all of us have seen the jersey get pulled clearly away from the body. In other words, everyone that is near me will see the same thing.

I would also agree that in the near future, something will be done, because it needs to be done, concerning un-intentional fouls at the end of a game to merely stop the clock and put the team at the line. Clearly, many of these fouls should be intentional, but I've not met many that would or do call it that way including myself. I often wonder why we as officials do not call more of these types of fouls intentional instead of just common fouls when it is clear they are indeed intentional. Many don't even involve a player with the ball either. Oh well, more rambling.

Again, some of these things can be prevented, and some can not, but for me, it's easier to sell the call if I tell the coach that the player(s) were warned previously.

What bothers me more are these interpretaions by assignors who BTW, usually work for the coaches even though many were officials at one time. When these people work for the coaches, what does one expect? The coaches will tell them how they want the games called, which in my opinion, is generally bad for the game.


goose

Re: 2 cents again
 

At our association meeting last night, someone asked the question about how the association wants us to call intentional fouls at the end of the game. The commissioner/assignor made it very clear that if the coach is verbally telling their players to foul and then a player grabs/pushes/holds with no attempt to play the ball, he wants us to call the intentional foul. He also said that if the player made an attempt to play the ball and fouled, it should not be considered an intentional foul.

I have called one intentional foul this season at the end of the game like this. Luckily the kid made it an easy call for me because he basically tackled the kid with the ball. But it's a tough one to make in one of those borderline situations - that's why they pay us the big bucks, I guess. :)

I think it just shows that this coach knows the officials in the area knows who calls what. He's probably run that play with a bunch of different officials and the only one to ever call him on it is so and so. Knowing that, I would be willing to bet that he doesn't run that play when so and so is officiating. That is not implying how he wants the game to be called but saying that he knows the officials and how they work the game.

This is a perfect example of one of the biggest problems in officiating and that is consistency. If EVERY official made that call, the coach wouldn't be running that play anymore. The reason he runs it is because, yes it gives his team an advantage and he knows that not everyone is going to call the violation.

It is the same in every sport. If I'm coaching baseball and I know that the plate umpire will give the pitchers a few inches on the outside part of the plate, I'm going to have my pitcher throw it there, and tell my batters to be aggressive out there.

Most rebounds would involve an intentional foul then. A1 boxing out, wraps arms back around opponent to keep him from moving to the ball...that's a common foul.

Grabbing the shirt should be no different than grabbing the arm or putting the arm across the opponents body to delay/hold him.

It becomes intentional depending on context. Did the held player have an unobstructed line to a near-certain bucket? Or was the level of contact excessive?

I guess we just look at this differently. I liken grabbing the shirt to be the same as grabbing someone's body. More like grabbing ahold of someone's wrist and not letting them go. The typical behavior of players doesn't fall into this category in my view of it. But purposely grabbing and holding any part of a person, to me, is crossing the line into intentional territory.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Originally posted by rainmaker Any coach, any good coach anyways, wants to win. Winning is their "flutter of thrill" (I'm assuming coaches above some level btw). I think for the situation posted originally, you're assuming too much. That coach wasn't saying how he wants the game called to make a good game, and because he knows the rules, and wants them enforced. He's implying that he doesn't want it called on his team, because he knows how to get an advantage out of it. If the other team got away with it, he'd be all over the refs about it.

And sometimes this is what they mean by be consistent, call it consistently on them not on us.