You call this an attempt to influence the official? What about when the coach discusses a call with an official - the coach is trying to get the call to go his way (like it's going to work).

I think influence is much worse than "that's a foul" "travelling."

Hawks Coach,
The clinicians want us to delay the whistle and continue the flow. And for sure, not as many "and 1" are called as in previous years.
Likewise, not as many bogus calls are made by our delaying the call to make sure we saw what we saw.
We all hope it evens out, but measuring that "equality" can only be a wish.
mick

I concure with Mick. At camp last year, clinicians were all over us on the fouls on made baskets. A coach who had the floor during a clinic last fall ask the official in charge whatever happened to the traditional 3 point play. The answer: It is still there but we want to make the players earn it. We don't want any cheep 2 + 1s.

[Edited by Tim Roden on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 01:08 PM]

As a coach, I would rather see more fouls called than not called. Before the flame wars starts here is my reasoning.

It is easier to teach kids to play good solid defense if they are called for fouls when they are swatting at the ball and not moving their feet. Sitting on the pine in foul trouble soon gives them the idea that they need to work harder on their defense. Look at the good pressing teams in the NCAA.

That makes sense CoachB,
It seems the better coached teams, with respect to the rules, is always penalized in a "liberal" let-em-play game.
mick

Mick, I know the standard is usually a little higher if you make the shot and I'm ok with that. What I object to is the standard that was presented, and one that I know some refs have, "if it's a made bucket, it's not a foul." There is definitely a place for an "and 1," and you should give the scorer the free throw they earned, and the defender the foul they earned. Some refs just refuse to do that in almost all circumstances.

Hawks Coach,
The guys, that refuse to call the "and 1", will start calling it when they catch on a little better.
You are right. That call should not be an automatic...either way.
mick

I agree with holding the whistle at times, I don't know how many times that I called a foul(that maybe I could have let go(ticky-tacky) when the basket was good). By delaying a split second on those type of foul calls, keeps the flow of the game.

AK ref SE

Pistol,

Ignore it..maybe the first time but not if it continual. The coach / player / sub / manager will be asks nicely to stop with the comments, but if they don't well then i have to deal with it. I gave a player a 'T' this year for yelling, "and one ref" after a successful basket. This year i've seen about 4 or 5 'T's' given out by university officials while they were working high school games for action just like these. I believe that it's about time we as an association come to a consensious about these types of actions. An't they breaking NCAA rule 10 section 5b?


keep smiling,
SH

huh?
 

Scott,
What is 10-5b? ;)
mick

Mark, I wasn't talking about 'discussing' a call. The original post related to a coach 'yelling' the phrase, "and one" on a field goal attempt. A coach yelling this phrase is no different, in my opinion, than shouting, "Call a foul" or "foul", or "call something". I've noticed that some officials consider this to be 'part of the game'. I think differently. In most cases, allowing a coach to continue this behavior, without a warning or technical, usually means that it intensifies, and like a virus, it spreads. Maybe to the fans, maybe to the players, and maybe to other situations in the game. Seldom, in my experience is this a one time thing. I consider this behavior on every fg attempt to be intimidating, baiting, and an attempt to influence an official. I've yet to find in the rule and/or case book where this type of behavior is acceptable. On the contrary, in the nfhs case book, play 10.4.1a it talks about a technical foul being charged to the
bench personnel for an 'uncomplimentary remarks' addressed to an official. While many of you will consider this to be 'hard-lined' or 'by the letter of the rule', I consider it as 'preventive'. Just like calling the early hand checks or three seconds, cleaning it up initially, prevents (in most cases) having to deal with it in the latter stages of the game or of the season. Some officials are reluctant to enforce the conduct and sportsmanship sections of the rules book because the penalties appear to be 'harsh'. However, these rules are as much a part of the game as rules 1 - 9. If I'm going to be lenient with this, then to be consistent, I must be lenient with all the rules.





[Edited by KDM on Mar 5th, 2001 at 03:55 PM]

Re: huh?
 

Sorry Mick..it was late and i was looking at the 99 rule book by mistake..The actual rule is 10 section 7 art 2 in NCAA 2001 (page br-114)"Attempting to influence an official's decision"

thanks
SH

[Edited by hoopsrefBC on Mar 5th, 2001 at 01:47 AM]

I like KDM's logic on enforcing the Rule 10. I think you must recognize the fact that a rule is being bent and that you communicate that to the offender. A warning followed by action usually works best for me.

I think we are now getting to the point. If the coach is trying to be cute with the ref he deserves a T. Since I have been a ref I try not to protest too loudly when there are a lot of "no calls". It is not fair when my kids are trying to play good defense and the other team has an advantage by not having their best players whistled for excess contact.

What's with all these T's. I have reffed about 75 games this year at all levels and have yet to give a T. What am I doing wrong??