Has anyone attended a summer camp this year? And how has the implementation of the new rules gone for you? Or are you not working with them because it is in between seasons? Just curious as I am going to a couple of them this summer.

Haven't been to camp yet. But our local summer league is not using the new rules, which I think is a mistake. But they don't ask me for my opinion. :)

Only had team control come up a couple of times and we sold it with, "Team control no shots," and never had a problem.

Had one double foul and it was the same way. I said, "Rule change it's POI, now," with not a single question.

I have worked only one camp where we used the new rules. I have worked several summer leagues and no one used the rules.

Peace

In every league I've worked in I have used the new rules, they have come up but not too many times. I have had the double foul and offensive foul come up, have not had the OOB violation yet.

Ditto. Also, I haven't given a T yet to any of the many players who have changed their shirts "within the visual confines of the playing area." I just can't accept that one.

The camps I am going to are team camps...both girls...so I hope there are not any budding Brandi Chastains.

Went to two camps, with one more pending, and all have applied the new rules. Haven't had any problems with the Team control issue, got questioned on the double foul POI. after quickly explaining, played on without further incident.

Brandi Chastain showed her bra. Big deal. There's less modesty and more exposure in the hallways of most schools. I really disagree with this rule, and I'm waiting to see how our association decides to enforce it.

which brings me to another aspect of it... In a game I did the other day, a player pulled her jersey up over her face for a moment, but she had a t-shirt underneath which did not get pulled up, and she attracted no attention to herself at all. It was just a private moment of frustration with herself. Is that within the rule to call, or not?

The way I've had the rule explained to me - yes, it is a T. Are you sure it was frustration with only herself, or could she have been "yelling" at you or your partners under cover of her jersey? I do that - I'll go home and yell into my pillow instead of yelling back at the coach. (My wife already thinks I'm nuts because I walk around the house on my heels, but that's another story...) Now, on a practical note, if I know for certain it was only for herself, and not done out in the middle of the floor for all to see, then I probably didn't see it happen; similar to how I would handle profanity. But it will be interesting to see how this is handled on a local association level, as well as the state level. I know we have been told in IL removing the jersey on the bench, to change it due to blood, is a T. I've already been told by several officials they will never "see" it, and therefore not call it.

I happen to like Brandi Chastain and her choice of tops! :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
[B]I don't think the rule is meant to address that situation, Juules. It addresses taking the shirt off, not pulling it up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]According to the NFHS web site, the rule <b>is</b> meant to address that exact same situation. Under 2005-06 POE's --"A"- it says "pulling the uniform out of the shorts in an emotional display" is a "T".

Terrible call if the player was just frustrated though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: Originally posted by rainmaker Quote: Originally posted by 26 Year Gap ..which brings me to another aspect of it... In a game I did the other day, a player pulled her jersey up over her face for a moment, but she had a t-shirt underneath which did not get pulled up, and she attracted no attention to herself at all. It was just a private moment of frustration with herself. Is that within the rule to call, or not? I don't think the rule is meant to address that situation, Juules. It addresses taking the shirt off, not pulling it up. According to the NFHS web site, the rule <b>is</b> meant to address that exact same situation. Under 2005-06 POE's --"A"- it says "pulling the uniform out of the shorts in an emotional display" is a "T". Terrible call if the player was just frustrated though.

That's what I would think.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[B]While I agree with your characterization of "Terrible call", isn't frustrated precisely the same as and emotional display?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust
[B]This is clearly the "Letter of the Law" vs the "Intent"

A player makes a mistake and is frustrated with themselves vs a situation where they disagree with a call.

I'm in the passing on that camp.

While I agree with your characterization of "Terrible call", isn't frustrated precisely the same as and emotional display? [/B][/QUOTE]Sure is. I really don't think that the purpose and intent behind the institution of this new rule is to punish a player that is obviously frustrated with him/herself. The technical foul is supposed to be for unsporting behaviour and I personally can't see anything unsporting in the act that Juulie described. I think that this is maybe gonna get interesting when they talk about it at the state level. Hopefully, something somewhere down the line is gonna be issued that says we are able to use our own discretion on this particular type of action. If not, this rule could turn out to be the same as another "elbow thrown without contact=T" or "OOB deliberately=T" type of rule that everyone just decides to ignore.

Gasp!

A rule everyone decides to ignore? Isn't that putting one team at an unfair advantage?

How could it possibly be doing that if you're ignoring the call at <b>both</b> ends of the floor? :confused:

Now, if you only ignore it against one team during a blowout.....

Only if one team breaks the rule, and the other one doesn't. THen you can't call it at both ends. Even so, I can't see any advantage gained by changing the jersey in the gym versus going to the locker room (or more likely behind the bleachers.)

Ok.

But, if it only happens on one end of the floor, or against only one player, isn't that a disadvantage to the other team even if you plan on calling it the same for them, but never get a chance? Or, how about after you let this one discreetly go, and 5 minutes later the other team does it because they didn't like your block/charge call? Do you not call that as well because you didn't call the first one, so you can keep things the same on both ends?

I don't disagree with your philosophy on calling things equally, 99.99% of the time. I'm just trying to find that elusive delicate balance for the other .01%.

Sure is. I really don't think that the purpose and intent behind the institution of this new rule is to punish a player that is obviously frustrated with him/herself. The technical foul is supposed to be for unsporting behaviour and I personally can't see anything unsporting in the act that Juulie described. I think that this is maybe gonna get interesting when they talk about it at the state level. Hopefully, something somewhere down the line is gonna be issued that says we are able to use our own discretion on this particular type of action. If not, this rule could turn out to be the same as another "elbow thrown without contact=T" or "OOB deliberately=T" type of rule that everyone just decides to ignore. [/B][/QUOTE]

While I would have hoped that the intent were as you say, one of the posted situations was the removal of a bloody shirt to change to a new one. The note with it said that the player is expected to go to the locker room to change the shirt....or get a T.

Why can't you accept and adhere to all rule changes?

I will accept and adhere to all rule changes as they are interpreted by my association. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

I'm not one to shy away from a T if it is deserved but I think I will give the players and the coaches a warning about this during the captains/coaches meeting prior to the game. I think I will try to explain to them that this is a rule in black and white. I think this rule is a tad bit touchy but will apply it if the board wants it carried out by the book. I'm sure someone will bring it up at most meetings and our local interpreters will be able to tell us what they think. Has this stopped us in the past with some rules? No. However, if we are directed to call it by the book there is nothing that says we can't do something prior to the game to prevent it from happening.

Tom,
I like that approach and will probably do something similar during my pregame with coaches and captains. 'An ounce of prevention is sometimes better than a pound of cure'.

Yabut..........

If you warn pre-game, then you pretty much gotta call it if it comes up <b>during</b> the game. If you don't call it, fer sure you're gonna get the other coach whining at ya saying "You told us that was a T. They're doing it and I want my T. I want it,I want it.....". The pregame warning kinda takes away your option of selective blindness. Jmo but I think that this just might be one new rule that maybe turns out as the poster boy for selective blindness.:)

You might be right. That is another approach to take. It could lead to a problem if someone is told to apply this rule as written. Some younger officials need to see what is going on so their assigners continue to gain trust. The sad part is the fact that this rule will probably not be applied consistently.

Great feedback...looks like the camps I will attend will incorporate the rule changes. One of them will have us work games with a vet, then sit and watch a game.

I really am not clear on the concept of people choosing which rules to accept and enforce and which ones not to. Since the rules committee decided that this was an appropriate rules change, shouldn't we be enforcing it? Maybe not at camps, but definitely when the regular season comes around?

I heard a similar comment from an official when the rule changed keeping the assistant coaches from getting up to talk to the table with questions. "I'm not gonna call that". Why be officials, if we're just going to make up our own rules or pick and choose which ones we like and don't like and will or won't enforce?

I would agree with the "Accept and Adhere" part, but would also have to go so far as to say I then would tend to agree with it as well. But the problem isn't with the people who choose to "accept and adhere, but disagree personally" - the problem is with the officials that just simply choose not to make the call that the rules and interpretations specify, because they don't like it. My question to these officials is "If you don't agree with the rules, to the point that you're not going to call them, why continue to officiate? You're damaging the game by picking and choosing which rules you "like" and "don't like", and enforcing/not enforcing them as such." It's not "me-sketball", it's "basketball", as defined by the rule and case books produced yearly.

You've hit the nail on the head...but it's the wrong nail. It's not so much as people not calling rules they don't like...it's people not calling rules that nobody likes and nobody call (and assignors are saying not to call). Someone that goes out with a rulebook in hand and calls anything they see just because it's in the book is not going to last long. Proper use of the rulebook requires a huge does of understanding the spirit and intent of the rule. There is not only a right call but a right time for that call.

For example, the removal of the shirt rule change this year. I can't imagine that I'll ever call a T where I wouldn't have already called a T (for unsportsmanlike behavior). This rules change is the equivalent of killing a fly with a nuke. It is also completely inconsistent with several recent changes of making things a violation instead of a T (elbows, deliberately going OOB or delaying returning, etc.)

So you're saying that it is just fine to choose not to call things you disagree with, even though the rule states you MUST do so (such as the wording for the intentional foul, that certain situations MUST be considered intentional and called as such). I don't remember basketball, or any sport for that matter, having the rules decided by what the public likes. Well, at levels below the NBA, anyway. Otherwise, Iverson would be called for traveling half the time he goes to the hoop - but because the public wouldn't like that, the officials ignore it. They're not there to officiate a game - they're there to make a good game for the people paying to be there.

And with that logic, we should be making "reaching" calls and "over the back" calls, even though there is no justification or rules to support it - only the fact that the public, due to TV Commentators, feels that they are fouls.

Just curious...do your games ever finish in under 2 hours and with 10 players on the court?

Absolutely. Besides, IMHO, no official should officiate with a concern for how many fouls he's calling or how long the game will take. You should do your best to call the game as it is being played. I hate it when, as a coach, I get officials that refuse to call stuff because they want to get out of there in a hurry. You chose to accept the game, you are being paid for it, and you should do your best.

My favorite has to be the officials that refuse to call stuff because it lengthens the game, in a running clock game... ?? Someone missed the logic in that.

As for how many fouls, I let the players decide that. If they're sloppy and fouling all the time, there are more calls. If they're clean, there are less calls. If one team is fouling more than the other, that team gets more fouls called. I always say "I call what I see", and especially hate the phrase "Call it both ways" - I can't call stuff on a second team that isn't fouling, or not nearly as much as a first team. If the differential is several fouls, most times that is a result of one team playing more aggressively than the other, causing more fouls by the way they play. In other words, a difference of playing styles. Some styles generate more fouls than others.

You just don't get it. There's more to the game than the rule book. The rule book is a guide to how the game is to be played/called, not a bible. You do have to know the rules inside and out to call the game correctly. But, you also have to know why the rules are there when they're intended to be applied. Sometimes that can't be gleaned from the print.

Any and every time there is contact, judgement is applied: foul or not, type of foul, severity (normal, intentional, flagrant), penalty (shooting or not). Calling a foul intentional is judgement. If there are enough components of the contact to possibly not be intentional, it will not be called intentional.

Have you ever seen someone call a multiple foul? There are often opportunities to do so. I've never seen it called and I've never called it. But, its a rule. It's there for a reason...not just when there happens to be contact with two different players that both could be a foul...but when both contact just have to be called.

Cameron you just gave him a new mole hill to climb.:D

Let's also remember that the new rulebook has not yet been published. We may know the gist of the rule changes, but not many of us know for certain what the exact wording of new/modified rules will be.

NAH. He's just bucking for the rule book editor's job.

Absolutely. Besides, IMHO, no official should officiate with a concern for how many fouls he's calling or how long the game will take. You should do your best to call the game as it is being played. I hate it when, as a coach, I get officials that refuse to call stuff because they want to get out of there in a hurry. You chose to accept the game, you are being paid for it, and you should do your best.



Well, Drinkeii, maybe it is just me, but I am not thinking your opinions are very humble.