The more you give 'em.....

[just another ref]

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?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by just another ref
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.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
The main problem is the NBA.

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!

[zebraman]

Originally posted by just another ref
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?

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebraman
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.

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.

[ChrisSportsFan]

Originally posted by just another ref

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!

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.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by zebraman

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 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.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
[B]

Originally posted by just another ref


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 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".

[stick]

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.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by stick
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.

[Ref Daddy]

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

[Ref Daddy]

Originally posted by Smitty

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.

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.

[stick]

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.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Ref Daddy

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.

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.

[stick]

Comprende~