I said "contact such that the shooter gets knocked to the floor." I'm not talking about flops. I'm talking about contact that causes the shooter to fall.

Jeff, you're using different examples yourself to try and make your point. And, Lah me, I'm getting sick of hearing tired mantras like "game interrupters" being cited when they aren't relevant at all to the play being discussed imo.

This play was set out fairly explicitly from the git-go.

<b>You have a shooter who's already left his feet and committed himself to a shot. You have a defender who now comes from behind and makes contact with that shooter with sufficient force to not only to displace that shooter physically from his original airborne path but to also make the shooter fall on his a$$. Now, sometime while displacing the shooter and then subsequently dumping the shooter on his butt, the defender also happened to touch the ball</b>.

That's the play we were asked about in the very first post in this thread. What disappoints me is people who now won't answer a very simple question--i.e. "Is that a foul or not?"

Jeff, if you hit an airborne shooter from behind, after that shooter has already left his feet, with enough force to not only displace that shooter from his original path but to knock him on his a$$ also, is that a foul or not? Yes or no? I just wanna know where you stand on this very particular play.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 20th, 2005 at 05:57 AM]

JR, I'm sorry you are getting tired of hearing it but the term "game interrupter" is something that is relevant right now for basketball. Everyone wants to have this huge gap between HS and college ball when it just doesn't always exist. I live in an area where some HS leagues are better than some college leagues I do. The rules aren't that much different so why should I approach the game so different? Constantly having "and one" plays in HS and/or college are game interrupters. It kills me when someone wants to constantly count the bucket but doesn't know when a player is gathering to shoot a foul should be a shooting foul all of the time. There is no difference in this rule between HS, college and the NBA.
I got of track for a second there. I cannot picture a scenario in my mind where I will call anything contact a foul all of the time. This is judgement and feel. The players are getting more athletic everyday and certa.............I'm really trying to picture this and it just isn't coming up as a automatic foul. Allow these players to block shots!

"lah me" - what does that mean and where did you get it from? Something I'm just wondering.

Lah me.

Forty-five years ago when I was a baby starting out, I was told not to call "cheap fouls". I asked whatinthehell a "cheap foul" was. The reply was a foul that didn't affect the outcome of the play- in the judgement of the official who had jurisdiction of the call.

Forty-five years later, all I hear is clinicians rambling on about stuff like "game interrupters" like they were just personally responsible for discovering the meaning of life. Well, in my case, all they are trying to do is teach an old dog old tricks. This ain't a new concept at all, folks. Been around forever- under different names.

It kills me when someone simply changes the vernacular of an long-time accepted recommendation on how to call the game, and then tries to take credit for it by intimating that it's something new and revolutionary. That my point, not that "game interrupters" by that particular name or any name are wrong or bad. Obviously they aren't.

See where I coming from now, Tom?

Btw, just as obviously, my own personal opinion is that if a defender physically displaces an airborne shooter and then knocks him on his a$$, it's a foul. Even in the....wait for it....SEC.

I can understand where you are coming from so in return I hope you can understand where some of us are coming from. I'm trying to use the terms used in the conferences I'm in. I have been around long enough to here things like "see the consequences of the ball" which is basically the same thing. However, I'm not going to cause a fuss because I heard the same thing in a different way. I also think the term "game interrupter" is a shorter way to say it. Finally, it should be our responsibility to understand current terms. Players do things and say things that they didn't do or say 10 years ago. In life old things are made new with different names. What would your suggestion be to combat this since you have brought up the fact that it isn't something new and revolutionary? I think the easiest thing to do would be to roll with it.

JR, now explain "lah me" to someone who is originally from the midwest but has lived in Alaska, Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada and Maryland.

"Game interrupter" is a shorter way to say "cheap foul"? Nah, it's just a different way. :) Why would I even think of combating it? Hell, I agree fully with the concept, and have done so for a helluva long time. I gotta say that it does help if you really know what a "game interrupter" really is though.

Tom, I pretty much agree with everything that you said above. I understand the use of current terms. I make it a point to try and do so. I don't think that anyone should ever stop learning, and I don't think that it really matters who you're learning from either- as long as what you're learning is new, germane and useful. I also know that the game is constantly changing and evolving also. What was an automatic foul 20 years ago may be acceptable now as incidental contact. What was a technical foul 20 years ago might not be now either. What kinda gets to me though is new officials who have gone to maybe one camp in their entire life, have never been close to calling a regular season high school varsity game let alone a college game of any type, don't really understand the <b>basic</b> rules and mechanics of our avocation, but solemnly regurgitate and preach some concept that they shouldn't even dream about using before they get some spit built up in their whistles. And a concept that they don't fully understand in the first place either; a concept that probably also isn't meant for the level of ball that they will be officiating anyway. NBA rules, theories, concepts and philosophies aren't germane to the FED game, believe it or not, and most of them don't fit in with NCAA philosophies either imo. And... then having a brand new official kinda intimate that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them has to be old and out-of-touch,well, that's simply called "trying to run before you know how to walk" imo.

End of long-winded rant.

Lah me = Oh My = WTF= you gotta be sh!tting me = anything that you want it to mean. :D Generic term I picked up off of the baseball board. Don't really know why I use it. Just seems appropriate to my weird sense of humor sometimes.

I have noticed that in the many different replies from many individuals, I have yet to hear anyone make reference to one criteria for making the call. The position you are in, in reference to making the call. Are you making the call from the T and C or are you making the call from the L position.
As I said in my original text I have made this call in different games at different times, but probally the most significent criteria to making the call is positioning and was I in transition.
So great ones give me your opinion.

JR, I agree with you 100% about experience. Going to a camp is great and needed but getting your fanny spanked during a real game is the only way to become poised under pressure. Many young officials do not realize that getting someplace too soon can make your stay at that destination short. Hopefully your statements will reach those in need. :D

The problem with the term "game interrupter" is that every foul, every violation and every time-out is a game interrupter. They stop the game. The problem is not game interrupters; the problem is unnecessary game interrupters. If you talk about avoiding game interrupters, there are people who will take that to mean, you want to pass on as much as possible simply to keep the game moving. And that's a bad way to officiate.


Aren't these comments kind of at odds with one another? You hate the constant "and one" play, b/c it's a game interrupter, yet you also hate that people don't understand that there should be an "and one" as long as the shooter has gathered the ball. If you teach people that, won't there be more of the "and one" plays you seem to hate?

And secondly, why exactly is an "and one" play a game interrupter? If the shooter is disadvantaged on the drive, isn't that supposed to be a whistle? I agree that officials at all levels award the "and one" when there sometimes is negligible disadvantage. But if the disadvantage is there, it's a call that needs to be made. Right?


You're not trying very hard. How about a punch?

Good advice, Tom, and not just for new officials. Politics, "knowing somebody", coming out of a dedicated training program, etc. may get you the initial opportunity. You still have to perform to <b>keep</b> that opportunity. And you have to keep on doing the job at a high level if you want to remain at a high level. The good officials never stop learning, evolving and adapting to the everchanging world imo.

If anybody doesn't wanna believe that, check with the one or two NBA officials that are let go every year because their performance didn't meet league expectations.

[/b]
The problem with the term "game interrupter" is that every foul, every violation and every time-out is a game interrupter. They stop the game. The problem is not game interrupters; the problem is unnecessary game interrupters. If you talk about avoiding game interrupters, there are people who will take that to mean, you want to pass on as much as possible simply to keep the game moving. And that's a bad way to officiate.

[/B][/QUOTE]Well said and an excellent point.

I think that Tom was talking about a "game interrupter" as being in the same vein as a "cheap foul" though.

Well said and an excellent point.

I think that Tom was talking about a "game interrupter" as being in the same vein as a "cheap foul" though. [/B][/QUOTE]I have noticed that in the many different replies from many individuals, I have yet to hear anyone make reference to one criteria for making the call. The position you are in, in reference to making the call. Are you making the call from the T and C or are you making the call from the L position.
As I said in my original text I have made this call in different games at different times, but probally the most significent criteria to making the call is positioning and was I in transition.
So great ones give me your opinion.

Chuck, I would have to disagree. We are talking about officials since that is what we are. We are there to make calls that need to be made. If we do that then we aren't interrupting the game as far as I'm concerned, we are doing our job. However, when we make a call that isn't needed or "cheap" then we interrupt the game when we shouldn't. That is the way the term has been presented to me. Keep in mind, I'm by no means the originator of this or almost any other term. I simply use the terms of those above me in whatever league/conference that may be at the time.

I guess I made some of my comments overlap and it didn't make good sense. There are too many "and one" plays. IMO, it is viewed by many to be the big play or a highlight type situation that requires some grand whistle and mechanic. If a player gets marginal contact and continues the shooting motion normally we can take a good look at the time, score and situation to possibly pass on this and let play continue. Notice I said marginal contact and the possibility that it can be passed on. I don't want to get painted into a corner and seem like I'm not going to call any plays like this. I had three of them in a game on Monday and all of them were BS in my opinion after the fact.

On a totally different note, there are times when a player has began their shooting motion and a foul is called on the floor. It doesn't matter if they go on to make the basket or not. The shooting motion starts when they start to gather the ball and so many times it should be two shots and it isn't called that. Again, this isn't some profound thing that I made up but the rules are the same for HS, college and the NBA. I heard this, to a lesser degree, a while ago on the west coast and I've heard it on the east coast too. If someone has something a different interpretation of the rule please chime in since we don't want to make a ruling like this without it being based on something in the rule book.

You got me on the punch thing even though I would consider that a fight and it has to be called all the time no matter where you are and see it on the court. Do you have any other situations where contact would always be a foul? This is pretty good.

Without trouble I can think of 2:

- An obvious illegal screen that frees the dribbler

- Crash into a stationary defender by an airborn offensive player off his pass.

Just last night I was in a conversation with an official that started a year before me. We discussed when A1 has gathered the ball, maybe gives a head fake and gets fouled. I explained that the player should get to go to the line and he disagreed. We then discussed when during a fastbreak situation, B1 gives A1 a handcheck around mid-court that it's best to bite you whistle as A1 will probably play thru it for his layup. You can still get that foul if he gets knocked off the ball. He again disagreed because, in his words "a foul is a foul". Then he asked to see my schedule and was upset that we work such different levels of games. All I could do is shrug my shoulders and explain to him again the importance of going to camps. To steal a term- Lah me!