The new rule says that it's a "T" if a player removes his shirt "within the confines of the playing area".

If a player has blood on his/her shirt, is directed to leave until it's changed, and then changes their bloody shirt for a clean one in their bench area, do you call a "T"?

Of course not.

The Fed will now have a reason to sell us a rule book for the year after this coming one, to clarify the interpretations.

JR...I have nothing here. I know that the volleyball guys will talk about the unsporting actions that volleyball put in a few years ago about ppl changing before and after the game w/n the confines of the playing surface, but here I would assume that the NFHS is talking about removing the shirt out of anger, frustration, etc...an actual unsporting act. Plus, I can see this scenario happening:

#33 gets blood on the the jersey.

R: Coach, #33 must be removed from the game, he has blood on the jersey. The shirt has to be cleaned or changed.
C: OK. Jimmy, put this new uniform on right here and check back in.
R: *TWEET* Technical foul, #33 white.
C: But ref, you told me to change the shirt!

BTW..what do you have JR? :D

I don't think so. :) But, there's gotta be something new so we have to go to the rules interp. ;)

The answer is posted in another thread- fresh off of the FED website. It's now supposed to be a "T". Of course, "shirt popping" is supposed to be a "T" now too.

Handle with care. :eek:

Ideally we wouldn't need one, but I hope this pops up on the list of 20 interpretations the NFHS releases before the season starts . . .

"Fresh off the FED website?" So the FED has specifically instructed to call the "T" for changing the shirt?

In one word.......
 

YES!!

Peace

Re: In one word.......
 

My bad Rut. I posted my question before I read the thread on the comments. Great job on the posts!

EDIT: Let me ask this then as a follow-up. Since A1 has now been removed from the game for blood, and changes his shirt resulting in the T, do we have a T on the player as well as an indirect on the coach since he's now not a player in the game?

[Edited by tmp44 on May 11th, 2005 at 10:47 AM]

Re: Re: In one word.......
 

It was just simple cut and paste, I did nothing special. :D

That is a very good question. Not something I thought about. Maybe it would be if they did so after being removed from the game. I bet this will be one of these things that the rules committee did not think though first.

Peace

Re: In one word.......
 

All I can say is WOW!! This seems like an overly officious rule. If we know there is blood on the jersey, why interfere with making a player legal to play. Guess we might now see the "girl-style" shirt change....slip the new one one first...slide the old one off underneath. That player always has a jersey on.

rules committee clearly states, they do not find it unreasonable for a player to return to the dressing room to change jersey in the case of having blood on the uniform. All other is fair game.

I agree with yours and JRutledge replies. I just do not understand why so many basketball official's can not comprehend the NFHS rule book and why do so many of us try to re-write or interpret the rules to their own thought process.
__________________________________________________ ____

Comments on the 2005-06 Rules Revisions

JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1i): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn’t require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations – even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.

THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7): A new definition for a team-control foul has been established, and the penalty has been changed to a throw-in in all cases. The ball will be awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. Bonus free throws will no longer be awarded. The change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials. Under the previous rule it was sometimes difficult to determine whether: (a) a player in control had released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges; and (b) a player had received a pass before the player charges. The change makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul. In addition, the change reduces delays in the game. The rule only applies when a foul occurs by the team in control. By rule, there is no team control during a throw-in, jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36): The penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls has been changed from an alternating-possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition of “point of interruption” has also been added to the rules book. If the point of interruption cannot be determined e.g., unsuccessful try in flight, the alternating-possession arrow will be used. The committee felt that no team should benefit from a double foul. Under the previous rule, if the alternating-possession arrow favored the defense, the defense would be awarded the ball, benefiting from the foul act. It is hoped that the change will increase the likelihood of double fouls being called when warranted.

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Unknown
Release Date: 5/10/2005




2005-06 Points of Emphasis

1. Sporting Behavior: The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee continues to be concerned with player, coach and fan behavior. While administrators continue to focus on solutions, it is imperative that all parties involved accept responsibility and improve behavior. Specifically, the committee wants the following addressed:

A. Uniforms: Players are increasingly using their uniforms in unsporting ways. Examples include: Holding the uniform out from the chest area to display the team name to the opponent or fans; pulling the uniform out of the shorts in an emotional display; and removing the jersey either on the court or near the team bench, especially after a disqualification. The committee expects jerseys to be worn properly and remain on. New Rule 3-4-15 adds, “A player shall not remove the jersey and/or pants/skirt in the confines of the playing area.” The result is a technical foul.

Uniforms must be worn as intended and the rule must be enforced. The jersey must be tucked in and shorts must be worn properly. When a player is in violation of the rule, the player is directed to leave the game. While an untucked jersey during the normal course of play is understandable until it can be corrected, too often there are multiple warnings for clear violations. Coaches bear a great responsibility in ensuring uniforms stay on team members. Officials must enforce the rule.

B. Time-outs: When a team goes on a scoring run, emotions often run high. Nationwide, there is an apparent increase in bench personnel running out onto the court after a time-out is whistled. Typically, the bench personnel of the team that has gained momentum run out onto the court to celebrate and congratulate their teammates. The other team’s players, heading toward their bench area, often cross with the celebrating team. This situation often leads to bumping, pushing and/or taunting.

Coaches must make sure that bench personnel remain in the team bench area (1-13-3) after a time-out is called. Officials must be aware of the potential for confrontation, use preventive officiating techniques and penalize appropriately.

C. Spectators: There has been emphasis over the years on player and coach behavior and the trends show improvement. However, fan behavior remains a critical concern. Too often, fans are using abusive language toward coaches, players and officials. Fans are also approaching the court, team areas and locker rooms – places that used to be “off limits” – to confront participants.

Game administrators must create and follow security procedures and support efforts to have offending fans removed from the premises. Proactive policies lead to fewer problems. It is the game administrator’s ultimate responsibility to provide a safe environment for players, coaches and officials. Do not wait for the official to point out the problem. If it gets to the point that the officials have to address fan behavior, there were most likely opportunities for game administrators to deal with it before it got to that point.

Officials should never directly confront fans. Find the game administrator to take care of the problem. In extreme cases, delay the game until the offending fan is removed. Coaches must not incite fan behavior. The coach’s sideline actions often have an impact on fan behavior – positively or negatively. Schools are encouraged to have security personnel on site for such situations.

D. Coaching box: The committee wants coaches to stay in the coaching box. There is a constant problem when coaches wander. It is a distinct advantage to the coach who is permitted to be out of the box because the coach has a better chance to communicate with his/her team. The coach can also influence play by being out on the court.

The rule is black-and-white, but it has not been dealt with properly. Most officials have not enforced the rule. The fact that the coach is not directing comments to the officials or is “coaching the team” has no bearing on rule enforcement. The coach who continually abuses the coaching-box rule risks having his or her governing body remove it completely. The official who doesn’t enforce it runs the risk of not following what the governing body wants enforced.

Once the coaching box has been removed because of a technical foul, all related rules restrictions must apply. There’s no way to get the box back after the privilege has been lost.

Assistant coaches must be seated at all times except during time-outs, to attend to an injured player after being beckoned and to spontaneously react to a play. The rules that permit a head coach to rise in certain situations (time-outs, confer with table personnel for a correctable error, dealing with disqualifications) do not apply to assistant coaches under any circumstances. Again, the fact that an assistant coach is “only coaching” has no bearing on the rule or enforcement.

Head coaches have the responsibility to remain in the box. School administrators must support that by demanding their coaches do so. When violated, the official must enforce the rule with a technical foul.

2. Free Throws.

A. Lane spaces. There has been much debate on what — if anything — to do with free-throw situations. Some want rules that would move players up on the low block or even eliminate the first lane space. The theory: The players underneath the basket are at a rebounding disadvantage. Data collected from a variety of sources does not support that theory.

Multiple studies show players in the first marked lane space garner roughly 75-80 percent of all free throw rebounds. That is a range the rules committee finds acceptable and is consistent with historical norms. The team closest to the basket is supposed to get most of the rebounds! The rules in this case are not designed to give each team an equal chance or guarantee a rebound to the defense.

B. Rough play. Keeping the block between players continues to serve its initial purpose. It reduces rough play. The same is true for player restrictions ending when the attempt hits the ring. Still, rough play is a concern. Coaches must not teach players to “lock up” arms along the lane line, nor drive players further under the basket with brute force. Officials must call those fouls.

C. Disconcertion. Free-throw disconcertion must be carefully monitored. Of particular concern is when the free throw will become dead (first of two or first two of three). Defensive players often employ tactics which serve no other purpose than to disconcert the shooter during free throws (“boxing out” the free thrower off the free-throw line, waving arms, yelling instructions to teammates, etc.). Another increasing trend is opponents outside the arc saying things to the thrower. With team free-throw percentages hovering in the mid-60’s on average, teams welcome a second chance free throw. They deserve it if disconcertion occurs and officials must call it.

3. Intentional Fouls. The committee is concerned about how games end. The intentional foul rule has devolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are 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.

A. Anytime in the game. Acts that neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position and must be deemed intentional include:
• Excessive contact on any player attempting a shot
• Grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored
• Grabbing and holding a player from behind or away from the ball
These are “non-basketball” plays and must be considered intentional fouls anytime they occur during a game.

B. Late in the game. Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped. There is widespread belief that it works or it wouldn’t be coached.

There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. “Going for the ball” is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells, “Foul!” instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is “automatically” an intentional foul — even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy.

With that, officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule. Far too often, officials do not whistle fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria. Officiating philosophies should not change because of the time remaining in the game or the score differential. The correct call should be made — not the popular one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Unknown
Release Date: 5/10/2005

Quote:

Originally posted by truerookie rules committee clearly states, they do not find it unreasonable for a player to return to the dressing room to change jersey in the case of having blood on the uniform. All other is fair game.

So it is not unreasonable to return to the dressing room, but not required to return to the dressing room? Personally I do not feel I should call a T if a player changes his/her bloody jersey courtside, but if the rule tells me to I will.

Quote:

D. Coaching box:

What is the coaching box actually defined as?

[Edited by lukealex on May 17th, 2005 at 03:50 PM]

I gotta tell ya, if you're going to "T" a team for changing a bloody jersey at courtside, add it to your pre-game. As you know all too well, we coaches rarely read the rules.

Issuing a "T" for changing a bloody jersey goes against common sense in my book. You'd probably end up awarding the coach with his second immediately thereafter. Then, he could go to the locker room with the player, and help him find an alternate jersey himself.

I do not think you would call a "T" just because of blood on a jersey and it needs to be changed. A "T" is used when a player deliberately removes his/her jersey while on the court, such as showing you up with acts of unsporting behavior or showing off his/her undies/boxers for the crowd. It is a judgment call based on the rules and pre-game conference with your partner. The solution when a player has blood on jersey or needs to change, would direct the player to change in a dressing room or away from the view of others, right?


Contact your association. Each has their own guidelines, just like some states allow a mercy rule with conditions while others have not adopted the mercy rule.

Quote:

Originally posted by truerookie rules committee clearly states, they do not find it unreasonable for a player to return to the dressing room to change jersey in the case of having blood on the uniform. All other is fair game.

Changed the wording:
So it is not unreasonable to return to the dressing room, but not required to return to the dressing room? Personally I do not feel I should call a T if a player changes his/her bloody jersey courtside, but if the rule tells me to I will.

Quote:

D. Coaching box:

What is the coaching box actually defined as?

NFHS rule 1-13 lays it out.

Well, if you inform the player before they change, that he/she should change in the dressing room, then you had used sound game management preventing from issuing a T. Base your actions of the players intent, right? Was he/she purposely removing their clothing, exposing skin/underwear unappr0prialty and deliberately?

Per your NFHS Basketball Rule Book; Rule 1-13-2, page 16: The coaching box shall be outlined outside the side of the court on which the scorer's and timer's table and team benches are located. The area shall be bounded by a line 28 feet from the end line, the sideline, an line no more than 14 feet from the 28-foot line toward the end line, and the team bench. These lines shall be located off the court, be 2 inches wide.

Note: By state association adoption, the head coach may be off the bench in front of his/her seat within the confines of the designated coaching box to give instructions to his/her players and/or substitutes. State associations may alter the placement of the 14-foot (maximum) coaching box.

This is a State's option to utilize a coaching box and so is the mercy rule.

Ok?

D. Coaching box:[/B][/QUOTE]
What is the coaching box actually defined as? [/B][/QUOTE]NFHS rule 1-13 lays it out. [/B][/QUOTE]

I should have waited for a much shorter and wiser response.

It appears as though the T for removing the jersey is not optional. THe wording is quite clear in the comments. The wording of the coaching box and the mercy rule both state clearly that they are optional. So I don't think you can compare.

I'm not saying I agree with this interp. I think it's assinine to make a player walk clear to the locker room to change a bloody jersey. But if they say we have to, then we have to. Intent isn't mentioned except to say that it doesn't matter.

As already discussed, it's not an option, it's the new rule; the jersey cannot be removed anywhere around the court. Also remember, it's not our job to tell them to change it, or how to change it, or where to change it, it's just our job to tell them they cannot play with a bloody jersey. It's up to the coach to decide if they want that player back into the game, and how to do it if they do.

I've been wondering why the committee would impose such a restriction, even penalizing uniform replacements. I can see the taunting or disrespect issues of pulling off the shirt, but why penalize a simple changing of the shirt? Since I've been enlightened by a few volleyball people about their shirt issues, I just wonder if it somehow has to do with equality. People (fans?) complained about girls changing their shirts, so now it carries over to basketball. But, of course, the committee can't limit the penalty to girls only, so they applied to boys as well. Any other thoughts, enlightenments, bright ideas?

taking away the judgement
 

I think the Fed is going a little overboard to make sure it gets called. If they make it as explicit as they have, then you have no choice or judgement. If they don't make it this explicit, it will boil down to: "well I don't think he/she was showing me up, they were frustrated with themselves etc so on and so forth" By making the changing a bloody shirt also a T they have damned sure removed the judgement of showing us up or not...It appears they are willing to trade a few bad "T's" to make sure they get the ones they want called.....

You said earlier,"I agree with yours and JRutledge replies. I just do not understand why so many basketball official's can not comprehend the NFHS rule book and why do so many of us try to re-write or interpret the rules to their own thought process."

So which is it?:D

What is the coaching box actually defined as? [/B][/QUOTE]NFHS rule 1-13 lays it out. [/B][/QUOTE]

I should have waited for a much shorter and wiser response.

[/B][/QUOTE]For a shorter response, you shoulda waited for Chuck.

Wiser? Naw.....from my own experience, I just think that you learn more by looking something up and reading it rather than having someone just supply you with the answer. Works for me anyway.

Someone pointed out to me that if it's only for disrespect, then we have to try to read intent. It might be obvious sometimes, but may not always be. A player could pretend it was just for blood in order to get away with disrespect, and a player could really be changing for blood, but have a sour look on their face. Personally, I think these are less problematic for a good ref to handle than trying to require that the player step away from the visual confines of the playing area. For me it's going to be good enough to step to the side of the bleachers and turn their back, or have someone stand behind them. But I'm waiting to hear what my assignor says. That's my motto in any gray area of the rules: What Would Howard Do? Hey, I like that... maybe I'll make tiny decals that I could stick onto the sides of my whistles, WWHD....

NFHS rule 1-1.

You are correct that it isn't an option when undressing within the confines of the playing area, as per NFHS rule 10-3-7h. And you probably thought it was asinine to give a T for leaving the court for unauthorized reasons (now it is a violation).

By removing the player from the game with the bloody shirt and asking that player to change in the dressing room, wouldn’t it serve a dignity purpose to all in attendance? You could ignore the new rule and allow any player to undress wherever.

Why do other official's apply an option with Rule 10-2 or Rule 10-3-3 for issuing a "T"? Matter of fact, why do many officials have options on violations, and fouls?

Maybe the answer is advantage/disadvantage, game management or even the term; holds your whistle, see through the entire play.




[Edited by johnny1784 on May 18th, 2005 at 03:10 AM]

Only applies within the confines of the playing area, NFHS rule 10-3-7h.

You must have a different rule book, 1-1 is court dimensions in my rule book.;)

Oops! LOL.

Above rule 1-1, "The intent and purpose of the rules".

well
 

why would you call a T for a player changing his uniform on the bench because you asked him to and he has blood on it?

Did him changing his jersey have any effect on the game -- after my second year of officiating i gave up on trying to advance by following the rules to a t...just ref the game, let the kids decide it and play ball.

Half the rulebook is filler to me i just call fouls and violations and if players or coaches cross the line after i tried to talk them back i whack em (in 3 years only 3or4 techs).

If i was the player that had blood on my jersey and i went to change and you t'd me up I guarantee youd be ejecting me very shortly and T'ing up my coach...is that really proper game management -- not to mention from that point on you would have lost all credibility as a crew for issuing that techincal. havent you ever played shirts and skins before?

And my reply to coaches who point out the fact that I overlooked a rule i point out one that i did for their team -- it all evens out.

sorry for the rant but many refs think to much instead of just going with the flow -- if as a player i thought so much i would make so many mistakes. If i make a mistake i acknowledge it to the coach or player and lord knows ive made a few...

Re: well
 

Care to elaborate on what is filler and what rules you are overlooking?

I agree that whacking a player for basically doing what you told them is not good, I seriously doubt that despite the exact wording, that this is the spirit and intent of this change.

It is overkill to take away any gray for us, mainly because the Fed was tired of seeing that shirt pull, underware showing, tantrum from players without a T.

Now back to your filler.

It's a fine line between game management and common sense and making up your own rules. Knowing the rules and more importantly the spirit and intent of the rules is what to strive for, but throwing stuff away will bite you in the rear.

Re: well
 

You're about as far off-base as you could possibly be on this one imo.

Whether you like it or not, the NFHS has issued this </b>RULE</b>. Note <b>RULE</b>!! I can't ever remember reading anything anywhere that says we get to ignore any rules that we don't happen to like or agree with.

If you don't call this <b>RULE</b>, let me suggest that <b>you</b> will be the one losing credibility, not the other officials who do call this <b>RULE</b>. Why? Because it IS proper game management!

Sorry for the rant, but it pisses me off completely when somebody says that they aren't gonna call a particular rule just because they don't happen to like that one There's a whole buncha rules that I'm not fond of either, but I don't think that it's my God-given right to just call the ones that I like only.

And <b>half</b> the book is filler? Lah me.

for example
 

team A scores a basket and runs down to defense -- team B inbounding the ball has a slight piece of foot inbound during the inbounds pass -- no back court defense I pass...

player bringing the ball up the court with no pressure takes an extra half step before starting dribbling I pass...

player is in the lane for 4 seconds while ball is being passed on the perimeter then starts heading out I pass...

player dribbling in frontcourt with no pressure goes to put one hand over the head to call a play -- palms the ball I pass...

player goes for a layup -- defense establishes position almost under the ring and gets hit by offensive player going for layup -- in high school thats a charge -- I pass -- you don't play defense under the ring on a layup...

post play -- defense has 2 hands on the offense and then proceeds to armbar -- Illegal -- I pass...unless I think hes pushing or guiding the offensive players...

close game -- ball flying OOB and player goes to dive out to save it -- about half an inch of his shoe touches the line -- I pass...I can always say that i didn't see his foot touch the line

10 minutes before the game visiting team doesn't have roster filled out -- I T the crap out of them -- just kidding -- i ask them where they are with it and if they are in the process of completing it i give them another minute...

kids name is like 30 letters -- it almost circles his number on the back -- I let it go...

Team A is red but one player washed their jersey with the wrong load and now instead of RED its a bit lighter but about 90% red -- I pass.

coach walks all the way to the baseline to talk to me -- I talk I dont enforce the coach's box...

A player has an earring -- I see it half way through the first quarter -- i instruct him it comes out our he wont get back in the game -- I dont want anyone injured...

before the game i realize that the baskets are only 9 feet high -- O well I guess that will be the closest thing to the NBA feeling for those kids that game...

I think it's a GOOD thing you want to give up officiating to coach.

Perhaps the reason you have not enjoyed officiating has a lot to do with your philosophy.;)

more like
 

the level of play i have seen has been going down so much -- these kids need better coaching not better officiating...

Amen to that!!!

Re: more like
 

Perhaps if you'd call the rules they'd learn.;)

Un-freaking-believable!

Just un-freaking-believable.

its good to know
 

that I am the only one who ever passes on anything -- which is why it only took me 3 years to get to a 4 rating as well as almost get my varsity schedule -- btw im 25 -- and also i have been evaluated by 6 guys -- 1 is our associations head of rules and 2 board members and i also ony t'd up 1 coach in 3 years and i have never left a game with that "what the hell just happened feeling" or should we have done something different -- Their 3 biggest knocks on me and I know this -- mechanics, pants couple inches to long, we might disagree on a call or two during the game.

the only discussion i have had with a coach because of my style of officiating is that he would rather I not use advantage/disadvantage --

And one more thing I guarantee you guys would like working with me because I help you out -- most officials dont know a damn thing about walking down a coach after you make a call -- ill get in there and have you switch with me and ill take the heat if i have to -- so no need to be so anal about "you're a bad ref"

I just officiate differently and in the end the only train wrecks that have happend in any of my games have been because they were just horrible teams or my partner and i started calling it to tight -- but the later can be adjusted with a simple meeting during a timeout "hey partner how bout we swallow our whistle for a while and let the game get a flow if it can" if it can't then were in for a long night.

So hey what can I say -- anything that happens on my court i can back it up to a coach or a player -- if a coach is adamant i call something that i am passing on i oblige -- and you know it effects his team as well because if i call something on one side i call it on the other.

You guys are aware people can dribble now to advance the ball up the court???

Re: its good to know
 

I'm glad you're here to set us straight! I was concerned that we had a shortage of pompous, condescending know-it-all 25 year olds who hold the key to the secrets of good officiating in this forum.

Re: for example
 

Why is this an unusual call - other than you didn't notice it earlier, like during warmups.

To my somewhat limited knowledge, this is in accordance with NF rules. What are you "passing" on?

Re: Re: for example
 

That's in the half of the rule book that he doesn't need.

Re: its good to know
 

Let's see you are in an area with what you have said has terrible play, so one could gather that it is not that big of an accomplishment to get a varsity schedule.

So does your resume give any credence to your philosophy?

So you pick and choose what to call.

You allow a coach to change how you call a game.

Every "train wreck" was because of something other than you.

And you'll take the heat from a coach, so we should all just love to work with you.

A universal concept in officiating is consistency. Just how can you be consistent when you keep adding factors to your decision?

I used to be 25 at one time. And I used to know as much as you. But a funny thing happened on my way to getting older - I found I didn't know as much as I thought I did.

I think it's safe to say there are times we've all passed on a call for one reason or another. The key to being good is knowing when to pass and when to make the call. One of the worst reasons for not making a call, however, is by stating you don't like the rule for whatever reason. It's not our job to pick and choose what rules we like and don't like. In almost all of your examples you have done the the kids a disservice by not enforcing the rules as written. In your OOB examples where a foot may by just in or out and you pass - you've screwed the other team out a possesion by not giving them the ball when they deserve it. When a player palms the ball to call out a play, and you pass, you've screwed the other team again because the first team got an unfair advantage by being able to do something against the rules AND call out a play. I would certainly call that an unfair advantage.

My guess is you are afraid to make the these calls, and justify your actions by saying it's a good thing to pass on these calls. Does it bother you when the coach asks you "Geez, how could make that call?" Well, how do you respond to the other coach who sees the foot on the line, sees you looking at it, and asks, "How do you NOT make that call?" Knowing WHEN to make or pass on a call is important, not just being able to pass on it.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Man, I'm grumpy when I haven't had my dinner yet.

Re: for example
 

I *could* possibly, by some weird, twisted, stretch of the imagination see passing on any of the other fouls/violations you listed. But ignore a clear OOB violation?

Heck, they don't even do that in the . . . wait for it . . . SEC.

im fresh out
 

of anythin else to type to get you guys into more of a frenzy --

Well, most of us had already figgered out that you were only a troll anyway. Kinda obvious you're not an official.

Re: Re: for example
 

You sure? ;)

Hey, Mark, JR, now that I've had dinner I'm a little calmer and willing to cut deecee some slack. He might not be a troll, just misinformed. I mean, I remember being told in my younger days not to call everything and be a Rule Book Ronnie (apologies to all named Ron). So maybe he's taken that advice to heart and it has morphed into its current state. Maybe we just need to help show him the error of his ways, and get him back on the right track. That is what this site is about - helping out the wayward sons (oops: and daughters) and bring them back into the fold?

troll
 

i might have turned some coaches and players green...but troll --

Re: troll
 

Don't forget a few members of this forum as well...;)

Re: for example
 

Well...I tell you what, if you let this go in any game that I am coaching and I guarantee that you would be T'ing up your second coach, and I would tell the AD and your assignor that I never wanted you back again. Enforce the rules you are supposed to enforce. I could care less if it benefits me or not, I cannot stand officials that pick and choose what rules to enforce.

And, if you ever told me "well I may be passing on this for them, but I am passing on this for your team" you'd better be ready to eject me because the next words out of my mouth would be what I thought of your officiating and it wouldn't be pleasant.

You talk about coaching, well I only have time to coach my kids how to play the game ACCORDING TO THE RULEBOOK. I don't have time to teach them how to play the game according to what every different official THINKS the rules should be.

Re: for example
 

Defense is putting yourself in the desired path of the opponent with the intent of forcing him to go a less desireable direction. Defense near the basket is no different. The shooter has the choice to pull up for a short jumper or otherwise changes directions. If they don't, call the PC foul. The defense took away their line and deserves the call.

Call it. Why reward an almost successful attempt at saving a bad pass. Making stuff up never helps us.
Remember that the team must only provide the scorer with the names. While it is the norm and is nice, there is no requirement that they actually be in the official book by the 10 minute mark. Otherwise, the scorer, if they want to be mean, could delay putting them in to force a T on the other team.
So? That is the proper procedure.
What else could you do about it? There is no penalty that could be issued. It's not a safety matter so just play the game.



[Edited by Camron Rust on May 19th, 2005 at 04:40 PM]

Re: for example
 

I know you have an ego and you are very conceited but you’re 25 years old, rated a #4 who has written some bizarre bb officiating thoughts. I would like to know, what state and association you are a member?

Maybe the NFHS should include posts from OFFICIALFORUM.COM for their 2005-6 'Simplified & Illustrated' books.

Troll.

The inmates have taken charge of the asylum.

Re: which begs the question
 

If we all ignore you will you go away?

i appologize
 

for antagonizing you guys -- it just seemed like something i could do to keep me busy when bored at work...

mission accomplished i would say -- but I do appologize for any hairs any of you have lost or that have gone grey on my behalf

have a great weekend --

Re: Re: which begs the question
 

If an official goes away, was she ever here?
mick

Thanks, Mick.