My 2005-2006 NFHS rule book arrived today! We've known for a while what the rule changes are, but I thought I'd post the exact text so that everybody can start thinking about the nitty gritty of exactly how things changed.

3-4-15 A team jersey designed to be worn inside the pants/skirt shall be tucked inside the pants/skirt and the pants/skirt shall be above the hips and worn properly. A player not conforming to this uniform policy shall be directed to leave the game. <b>A team member shall not remove the jersey and/or pants/skirt in the visual confines of the playing area. See 10-3-7h and 10-4-1h for penalty.</b>

4-19-7 <b>A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control.</b>

4-36 <b>POINT OF INTERRUPTION
ART. 1 ... Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an iterrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10.
ART. 2 ... Play shall be resumed by:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.</b>

6-4-3-g <b>Double personal, double technical or simultaneous fouls occur and the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.</b>

7-5-5 <b> After a player-control foul, as in 4-19-6; a team-control fould, as in 4-19-7; or after a common foul prior to the bonus rule being in effect, as in 4-19-2, any player of the offended team shall make the throw-in from the desginated out-of-bounds spot nearest the foul.</b>

7-5-9 <b>After a double personal foul, as in 4-19-8a; a double technical foul, as in 4-19-8b; or a simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-10, play shall be resumed at the point of interruption. See 4-36</b>
9-3-2 <b>A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents ofr a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception 4)</b>

10-3-3 <b>Delay returning after legally being out of bounds</b>

10-3-7-h <b>Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.</b>

10-4-1-h <b>Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.</b>



[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Jul 29th, 2005 at 07:58 PM]

The new rulebooks are here! The new rulebooks are here!!!

Is there any explanation in the new books about what is the mechanics to be used for the new Team Control Fouls?

Peace

Yes, You give one hand fist to indicate foul; preliminary signal to indicate nature of foul (example block); point to the opposite end of the floor; indicate spot for the designated spot throw-in. I got the information from Referee Magazine August edition. It is worth the subscription.

I have the same magazine issue. I was wondering if the rulebook had specific information or not. It is one thing to have it in Referee Magazine. It is another thing to have it in the rulebook. Referee Magazine is a media outlet reporting the information, the rulebook is something everyone is going to see and reference.

Peace

In Quaker business meetings, there is a thing called "seasoning". A minute of action, or a nomination for a position is proposed, and then set aside for "seasoning". This means that everyone goes home and prays about it, thinks about it, maybe gossips about it. At the next business meeting (normally a month later), the minute or nomination is approved or not. I read Referee Magazine that way. When I get done with an article, I think, "Hm, that was interesting. I'll see how many corrections they have to print next month regarding this article."

Okay, that's an exaggeration, but they do print a surprising amount of stuff that has to be changed. I too, would like to know what the rule book itself says about the mechanics for the TC.

So, what did they do with 10-3-3? Is it still in the book? What do we do if a defensive player leaves the floor for an unauthorized reason?

Sooooooo. . . no. :)

I havent' seen anything in the new book yet that indicates any kind of mechanics on the team control foul. There is nothing on the signal chart that indicates team control foul. Signal 33 is still labeled Player Control Foul.

I hope our clinicians come up with something that we can use in my state. If they do not, people are going to either use the college mechanic or make something up totally.

Peace

10-3-3 Now only says it's a T to "Delay returning after legally being out of bounds."

9-3-2 makes no distinction between offensive or defensive player. The penalty refers you to "exception 4" of 6-7-9 which indicates:
"the ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: ... a violation, as in 9-3-2 or 9-13-1, ocurrs by an opponent."

That would certainly indicate that it's proper to call a violation on the defense for leaving the court and that there is a "delayed" dead ball in the case of a tap, try or foul against the airborne shooter.

That certainly seems to back up what was printed in the August Referee Magazine article.

In my area, both NCAA-M and NCAA-W use the punch mechanic for the TC foul, so I'm wondering if that's going to trickle down locally now that NFHS has the TC Foul rule.

(Personally, I'd rather see that than the PC Foul signal, since it's been long-equated with an on-the-ball offensive foul.)

Wow, there really seems to be a BIG loophole in this. The NCAA kept the T in the book for a very good reason. The defender running OOB to get around a screen. It seems the the NFHS has been pretty short-sighted and removed that. I don't think that a violation is enough to prevent defenders from doing this.

A smart coach will now have his kids purposely run OOB to get around screens set along the end line or side line. Why not? If the official stops the game and calls a violation, who cares? The offense had an advantageous position anyway because the defender was going to be picked off leaving an opponent wide open. Especially, if the defender is beaten and can't get to his opponent who is going to receive a pass for a good shot. So stopping the game hurts the offense.
If the official doesn't call a violation, then the defender gains an advantage in trying to prevent the shot.


Just picture the play in which A1 and A2 set a double screen along the lane line against the end line. A3 is set up in the corner and A4 is swinging the ball around the perimeter to A5 who will get it to A3 for the shot. B1 desperately needs to get past the double screen set by A1 and A2, who MAY NOT STEP OOB, so B1 simply runs OOB and around them to get over to A3 in time to prevent the shot attempt.
This used to be a T on B1. It now appears that the most the official can do is stop the game and award the ball to Team A for an end line throw-in. Not much of a deterrent. How many coaches really want to see their offensive set interrupted for this violation?

Those working the men's games shouldn't be doing this or their evaluator will be on them. Well at least he should be. Maybe whoever is in charge of the games in that area doesn't care what mechanic they use.

The assignor I work for (Men's NCAA) does not really care if officials use the punch. I use the punch when calling a foul and when I report I use the prescribed mechanic. I guess it just depends on who you work for.

Peace

That seems to be quite a bind - by my reading of that, you can't even 'step it up' and call a T on the defense if their going out of bounds affects the play.

Any chance we'll see an online clarification on this from the NFHS?

How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year?

If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1.

How so?

Other than a throw-in pass going back court, which would only require an exception ala NCAA rules, what other complications would there be?

[Edited by blindzebra on Jul 31st, 2005 at 04:50 AM]

Nope, In FED there's no team control during a throw-in and therefore no team control fouls during a throw-in. Why they didn't choose to follow the NCAA exception, I don't have a clue.

If there were really a player who could, from one side of the lane, recognize a shooter in the opposite corner, go OOB around two screens and get to the shooter before the shot is gone, we've got 1 of 2 things: a shooter that is as slower than Christmas or a defender that could outrun an F16.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 1st, 2005 at 03:00 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker Quote: Originally posted by Nevadaref How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year?

That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago [quote]

Quote:

Quote: If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1.

The complication was a throw in - and team control - ended on the legal touch. This meant if the throw in was tapped but not controlled you could have a situation after the tap but before the ball was controlled on the court where a foul was NOT a TC foul.

This changed the following year, TC now doesn't end on a throw-in until a player controls the ball on the court.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2005 at 02:05 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker Quote: Originally posted by Nevadaref How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year?

That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago

Quote:

Quote: Quote: If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1. Quote: How so? Other than a throw-in pass going back court, which would only require an exception ala NCAA rules, what other complications would there be?

Ah, but that would not be the case under FED rules, since a touch by B does not end TC under the current rules.

As I see it, if there is team control during a throw-in you just have a live ball being passed among teammates, and all you'd need is the back court exception if the throw-in comes from the FC.;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra Quote: Originally posted by rainmaker Quote: Originally posted by Nevadaref How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year? That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago Quote: Quote: Quote: If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1. Quote: How so? Other than a throw-in pass going back court, which would only require an exception ala NCAA rules, what other complications would there be?

Quote:

Quote: The complication was a throw in - and team control - ended on the legal touch. This meant if the throw in was tapped but not controlled you could have a situation after the tap but before the ball was controlled on the court where a foul was NOT a TC foul. This changed the following year, TC now doesn't end on a throw-in until a player controls the ball on the court. [Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2005 at 02:05 PM]

The way I understand the new fed rule there is not TC on a throw-in so the touch is irrelevant. Got 1 more exception, here's a hint:

"C'mon ref he's been in there all day! 5! 6! 7!!"

:)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Originally posted by blindzebra Quote: Originally posted by rainmaker Quote: Originally posted by Nevadaref How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year? That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago Quote: Quote: Quote: If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1. Quote: How so? Other than a throw-in pass going back court, which would only require an exception ala NCAA rules, what other complications would there be? Quote: Quote: The complication was a throw in - and team control - ended on the legal touch. This meant if the throw in was tapped but not controlled you could have a situation after the tap but before the ball was controlled on the court where a foul was NOT a TC foul. This changed the following year, TC now doesn't end on a throw-in until a player controls the ball on the court. [Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2005 at 02:05 PM]

Quote:

Quote: Ah, but that would not be the case under FED rules, since a touch by B does not end TC under the current rules.

Actually, if it was at 7, we might have another count issue.:D

That does not need an exception it needs an editorial change to TC in FC in bounds.;)

Got 1 more exception, here's a hint:

"C'mon ref he's been in there all day! 5! 6! 7!!"

:) [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, if it was at 7, we might have another count issue.:D

That does not need an exception it needs an editorial change to TC in FC in bounds.;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Why would you need an entire exception for BC violation but only an editorial change for 3 second violation?

Actually, if it was at 7, we might have another count issue.:D

That does not need an exception it needs an editorial change to TC in FC in bounds.;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Why would you need an entire exception for BC violation but only an editorial change for 3 second violation?
[/B][/QUOTE]

It just seems easier to say it that way. In reality there is no difference.

A player shall not remain in the lane for 3 seconds while his/her team is in control in the FC, in bounds...or A player shall not remain in the lane for 3 seconds while his/her team is in control in the front court, except during a throw-in.

Fewer words.:D

No, but the touch does end the throw-in.

So, there's TC during the throw-in, the throw-in ends when the ball is touched, so there's no TC until the ball is controlled.

What would be needed is a statement that TC *begins* during a throw-in (or when a live ball is held or dribbled inbounds...). Then we'd just need the BC exception.

So what if there are players who are slow or others who are quick on their feet. Officiate the game to keep it fair and fun.

Use "advantage/disadvantage" by holding your whistle to see the play through. If the offense loses possession or A1 misses the shot, blow your whistle for a violation on B1 but if A1 scores, and then ignore the violation.

No advantages gained by the defender or in case the offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason, use the same method.

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.

Just picture the play in which A1 and A2 set a double screen along the lane line against the end line. A3 is set up in the corner and A4 is swinging the ball around the perimeter to A5 who will get it to A3 for the shot. B1 desperately needs to get past the double screen set by A1 and A2, who MAY NOT STEP OOB, so B1 simply runs OOB and around them to get over to A3 in time to prevent the shot attempt.
This used to be a T on B1. It now appears that the most the official can do is stop the game and award the ball to Team A for an end line throw-in. Not much of a deterrent. How many coaches really want to see their offensive set interrupted for this violation?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Use "advantage/disadvantage" by holding your whistle to see the play through. If the offense loses possession or <font color = red>A1 misses the shot, blow your whistle for a violation on B1</font> but if A1 scores, and then ignore the violation.

No advantages gained by the defender or <font color = red>in case the offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason, use the same method</font>.

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.
[/B][/QUOTE]Wow! No time limit on a whistle? Wait for 4-5-6 seconds on this play to see whether the shot went in or not after the defender went OOB, and if it didn't, you then call the violation? Don't think so!

Use advantage/disadvantage if an offensive player leaves the court for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason too? There's no way in hell that was the purpose and intent when this rule was implemented. The rulesmakers put this rule in to try and <b>stop</b> players from leaving the court for <b>unauthorized</b> reasons. The only judgement we have on this call is whether the player's reason for leaving the floor was legit or not. If we rule it wasn't, we call the violation. We don't wait until later.

Bad, bad, bad advice imo.

Not quite, Johnny - the only listed exceptions are for technical fouls against team B during a fast break by team A and for certain free-throw violations by team B.

We can certainly have what many call "delayed whistles" for fouls, but I would argue that technically, there's no such thing. The whistle may come appreciably after the contact, but the foul doesn't exist until the official recognizes it as such.

(end metaphysical discussion)

A violation, OTOH, exists when the conditions for the violation are met. Some of us may "miss" the defensive player stepping OOB under some circumstances and, in the real world, whistles may be slightly delayed. By rule, however, there is no support for a delayed whistle.

This is exactly why creating a (more-or-less) new category of infraction -- namely the defensive violation -- is a problem. It hasn't been well thought out in these terms. With the defensive kick, defense gains an advantage, and the whistle takes that away. But in the case of the defender stepping oob around a screen as a way to take away an obvious advantage, there's no way to counteract the illegal advantage gained. The rules require us to give the defense the illegal advantage.

It isn't like it's going to happen very often, but the one time it does, it'll be a huge issue. I wish they'd change it BEFORE someone loses a game because of it. But I don't expect they will.

Someone please help me understand! Am I to understand that everybody is talking about calling a violation on the defense? When I first read the rule and still read it, I interpret it as the intent being to penalize the offense. For example, a player using a low screen near the baseline and going OOB to use the screen. Why would we even think to penalize the defense. Who would get the ball? The team who just had it, right? Why is this such a big deal?

I'm sure I am just not understanding something? If anyone could take the time to explain, I would appreciate it.

Why do you interpret this rule as only applying to the offensive team? Do you have some rules language that we haven't heard about yet?

You don't feel that the defense should be penalized if they get an unfair advantage by going OOB? If an offensive player goes OOB to use a screen, that's a violation-- but if a defensive player goes OOB to use(avoid) the same screen, that's OK?

It's not the first time this has happened.

Remember when they required LGP in bounds for the defense, many wondered why we did not have the same requirements for screeners mentioned in the rules.

Maybe he thinks that way because most of the interpretations have nothing to do with defense at all. Referee Magazine gives some plays with only one talking about the defense at all. That one play talks about gaining an advantage for a rebounding spot by a defensive player. I have not ever seen this is a game I have ever worked.

I do not think his point is "it is OK" for the defense to go out of bounds. I think his point is if they go out of bounds, why are you going to stop the clock and give the ball back to the offense that already had the ball? Now you let the defense set up to stop the offense when earlier they probably were not in a good position to do so. I think he has a very legitimate point.

Peace

I quit.

J Rut read my post in team control foul signal sequence and you will know why.

Just 122 posts in.

I can see penalizing the a player during a rebound when he goes out of bounds to come back in and get a better position. I do not understand, however, blowing the whistle to stop play and just give the ball OOB to the team who already had it. Kind of pointless isn't it? If I was a defender I would go under every screen and step OOB everytime I could, especially if I could not keep up with the kid(I could keep up with him).

I am not following your point.

Did I not just make this same point?

Peace

IMO, most officials do not have the guts to make this call or many others. Last year, a technical was issued for going OOB for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason whether it was a defender or an offensive player. I feel a technical would serve a better purpose than a violation.

What are the new mechanics for this new rule and for TC's?

If the defense were to use this tactic for an advantage such as:

A1 steals the ball and is at mid court on his way for an uncontested lay-up. B5, steps oob and says to the old lead/new trail "hey ref, I am oob." Tweet! violation. Put ball in play at the BC end line because that is where the violation occurred?

or

Team B wants a time out but Team A is in control of the ball, B1 steps oob to get the violation. Team B did not have to foul to stop the clock and get the TO.

or

Team A has the ball in front court. B1 runs to the far end line oob to commit the violation. Tweet! Team A now has the ball for a spot throw-in at the far end-line. They could make the team keep bringing the ball up court time after time - an effective strategy at the end of the game to make a team burn time.

Maybe we have the latitude to interpret these plays and others as unsportsmanlike conduct and call a "T".

An excellent point!

I agree to disagree with most of your reply. It is a very good decission to hold your whistle and see the entire play if warranted. But

Use "advantage/disadvantage" by holding your whistle to see the play through. If the offense loses possession or <font color = red>A1 misses the shot, blow your whistle for a violation on B1</font> but if A1 scores, and then ignore the violation.

No advantages gained by the defender or <font color = red>in case the offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason, use the same method</font>.

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.
[/B][/QUOTE]Wow! No time limit on a whistle? Wait for 4-5-6 seconds on this play to see whether the shot went in or not after the defender went OOB, and if it didn't, you then call the violation? Don't think so!

Use advantage/disadvantage if an offensive player leaves the court for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason too? There's no way in hell that was the purpose and intent when this rule was implemented. The rulesmakers put this rule in to try and <b>stop</b> players from leaving the court for <b>unauthorized</b> reasons. The only judgement we have on this call is whether the player's reason for leaving the floor was legit or not. If we rule it wasn't, we call the violation. We don't wait until later.

Bad, bad, bad advice imo. [/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree with most of your reply. It is a very good decision to hold your whistle and see the entire play if warranted. But Ref PA made a very good suggestion regarding tactics used to gain an advantage by purposely going out of bounce to draw an immediate violation to consider using the unsporting behavior by issuing a technical.

Do you as a senior basketball official call every violation and every foul you see? If A1 breaks away on a fast break and B1 reaches across to make a steal but B1 has made illegal contact, impeding A1's direction, would you call a foul on B1 even though A1 has possession and scores a lay up?

Can you give me a better synopsis and suggestions on when it is appropriate to hold or not to hold your whistle, and when to use advantage/disadvantage techniques? Thanks.

ps
There is never a time limit on a whistle. You as an official can blow your whistle unlimited seconds after a violation or foul has been committed. It may not be acceptable to the coaches, fans, etc. but as an official you may have a slow reaction to what may have just occurred or you have a correctable error, in which there is limit based on dead ball.

When the penalty for this was a technical foul, it was almost never called, even with the POE last year. Why? Because a potential six point swing (loss of possession, plus free throws, plus the ball) is too stiff a penalty for this "crime." The penalty was, for all intents and purposes, unenforceable.

This year the committee has lessened the penalty to a violation, and we're likely to see some of these get called. Good, I've seen a big increase in this behavior lately. But it's created a potentially sticky situation when the defense commits this violation.

Admittedly we're not likely to see a huge increase in defensive violations. But some people are going to try it, just to see what advantage they can gain. Not every night, and not in every town, but a few people in a few places. There are just too many obvious "loopholes" to not have somebody try.

What the officials on those games will actually do about it remains to be seen. But for the sake of argument, what we need is some middle ground penalty for when the defense violates. One solution I like would be similar to the NBA penalty for defensive three seconds. Assess a team technical, give one free throw and put the ball back in play at the POI. It's got enough sting to make it not worth violating, but isn't so draconian that it wouldn't get called.

Use advantage/disadvantage.

But what are the new mechanics for the rule changes?

http://www.ccboa.org/articles/advant...antage0804.htm

Advantage/Disadvantage:

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

I'm sure you have all heard a coach or a fan say something to the effect of " I thought basketball was supposed to be a non-contact sport!" This tired old line usually comes when their team is getting waxed and a player from their team gets clocked with a perfectly legal screen. As you are well aware from officiating, basketball is very much a contact sport and we have been given the authority to determine if the contact that occurs throughout the course of a game constitutes a foul or not. It is clear that not all contact by opponents against each other is a foul. What shapes your judgment to make that determination? This article will discuss several items that an official needs to think about regarding contact on the floor and determining whether or not the contact constitutes a foul or is to be considered incidental contact.

In order to be a good official, one must not only know the rules and mechanics but must have an understanding of the "spirit and intent" of the rules before trying to apply them. We cannot officiate any game by the book. By that I mean, we cannot bring a strict interpretation of the rulebook to the floor and expect anyone to be happy with our performance. Also a good official understands the concept of "advantage/disadvantage" when making any ruling regarding contact. Rule 4, Section 27 makes is very clear that there is a lot of contact in the game of basketball that must be considered "incidental contact" and is not to be considered a foul. This rule states in part .."The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur." It further says, "contact which does not hinder the movement of the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental". This rule outlines the advantage/disadvantage concept as has been preached for years. Officials are paid to make judgments! Anyone can blow a whistle and call a foul if an opponent makes contact with another, but a good official can see the contact and make an immediate judgment as to whether or not the contact caused the receiving party to be put at a disadvantage. If so, call a foul, if not, let it go. Remember a "No Call" is often times the "Right Call."

A concept known as the "Tower Philosophy" sets the basis for using good judgment when officiating. In part the Tower Philosophy is as follows: " It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his/her opponent and a disadvantage. It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of the rules then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect on the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored, as it is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred." This provides all officials with a great foundation from which to build our own officiating style and philosophy.

I would like to point out a couple of areas where I feel we tend to call too many fouls rather than following the "Tower Philosophy" One of the areas is the over the back contact on rebounds. I think many of us have made that call and then wondered to ourselves why in the devil we blew the whistle. The player had inside position, got the rebound and landed soundly while getting ready for an outlet pass, and we call a foul because an opponent also trying to get the rebound bumped him from behind. There is no dispute about contact occurring, however the judgment having to be made by the official is, was the player put at a disadvantage by the contact.

Another area where I have seen a lot of fouls called when, in my opinion, a no call was the proper call is a bump by a defender on the dribbler in the backcourt or mid-court areas. I am not saying to let all of this contact go, but for the official to take a split second to determine if the contact put the dribbler at a disadvantage. Who is really being penalized if we call a foul on a bump when the offensive player is already past the defender and has a clear lane to the basket?

In the games that I have observed our newer officials, the area of judging contact is where I see the greatest variance in abilities. Some officials call everything, others call very little and there are those who are getting a good grasp of using the proper judgment when calling a game. Use of the Tower Philosophy during all games that you officiate will result in you being more consistent with your calls, which will help you become a better official.

get 'em JR
 

Sorry, but you are not correctly applying the advantage/disadvantage concept, you are advocating misapplying the rules of basketball, and JR duly admonished you for holding this position.

You cannot BY RULE do what you write above because the ball is DEAD at the time of the violation, unless A1 has already started the trying motion. Therefore, you can't wait for A1 to shoot. Put simply, the problem is that the goal doesn't count if the violation precedes the try, NO MATTER WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO BLOW THE WHISTLE.

If A1 has started the trying motion you could blow the whistle for B1's violation and award the ball OOB to Team A whether the try is successful or not, just as if B1 had fouled A2.

IOW the advantage/disadvantage concept must be applied within the rules, not used as a means to circumvent them and apply your own personal standard of justice.

PS IMO no official who practices your advice is going to stick around very long at any level, especially the higher ones.

The Tower Philosophy assumes two competitors who are making honest yet vigorously opposing attempts to play the game within the rules. It has little application in a situation where one competitor is wilfully violating the rules in an attempt to gain an unintended advantage over the other. At that point you've clearly moved beyond advantage/disadvantage and into a kind of damage control mode where whether or not you make the call is based on not letting one team use you to screw the other.

If there's a God, Nevada, then He's gonna let me be present when the defender who went OOB in this play subsequently comes back in and fouls A1 on the shot. :D

What's your call on that one, Johnny?

Call the delayed violation? I wanna be there when you try to explain to the coach of the shooting team why he now isn't gonna get his 2 free throws. What's your explanation to him gonna be as to why you didn't blow your whistle when the violation occurred?

Call the foul? I wanna be there when you try to explain to the coach of the defensive team why his team is now getting charged with a foul and his opponents are getting 2 free throws when the <b>correct</b> call woulda only have been a violation. What's your explanation to him gonna be as to why you didn't blow your whistle when the violation occured?

We don't know yet how the FED is gonna tell us to treat defensive violations of this rule. We should find out before the season starts, but until then all we can do is speculate- which is what we are doing in this thread. Speculation is fine, but that still doesn't change my opinion that delaying your whistle from <b>one</b> call to another <b>completely different</b> call is ever a good idea. It sureashell ain't imo.

Hold your whistle while A1 finishes getting in position, takes a pass, goes up with a shot from the corner and then misses that shot? And then possibly make a call that has absolutely <b>nothing</b> to do with <b>that</b> sequence but is applicable to a play that happened before it? I repeat, that's just terrible advice imo, Johnny.

Re: get 'em JR
 

IMO, you're lying to yourself and me by writing you call every single violation and foul that occurs. If you do, your games are lasting many hours and you are not using good game management.

You might be that official who writes the correct words for others to read but performs by calling out of ones area, making phantom calls and or makes a call on the whim without seeing the WHOLE PLAY.

I would bet by observing your game, I could point out many plays that you should have called or not have called or made an incorrect ruling.

At the higher levels they will use a similar yet more prevalent philosophy for game awareness and managing the game.

Whatever you want to imagine, making yourself feel like the god of officiating. You seem to stretch the facts to support your concept. You’re using scenarios that I never wrote nor implied in my post.

You can choose to use your philosophy by always blowing your whistle at the very instant you see a foul or violation.

You might have the remembrance to all rules and regulations of NFHS basketball but IMO, based on your written words; you’re not a very good official.

So some HS association in N. California is the pinnacle of basketball officiating knowledge?

When they use announcerspeak like over the back, they have nothing to offer.

Zip, nada, zero.

Any philosophy taken to the extreme and taken in absolutes is dangerous.

So your opinion makes you a good official, and disagreeing with it makes you a bad one?

Well....

I'd work with Nevadaref and JR, on their death beds, putting their last breath into the whistle, making the right call, before I'd work with the likes of you.

The word clueless comes to mind.:rolleyes:

Whatever you want to imagine, making yourself feel like the god of officiating. You seem to stretch the facts to support your concept. You’re using scenarios that I never wrote nor implied in my post.

You can choose to use your philosophy by always blowing your whistle at the very instant you see a foul or violation.

You might have the remembrance to all rules and regulations of NFHS basketball but IMO, based on your written words;<font color = red> you’re not a very good official</font>.
[/B][/QUOTE]I guess that you don't feel like answering those questions, right, Johnny? Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me.

What may surprise you is that I possibly might just happen to understand the value of a delayed whistle on a play. And you also may be surprised that I most certainly do agree with and advocate that concept. And, seriously, I read the Tower Concept before you even dreamed of becoming an official. However, to recommend delaying your whistle until a <b>subsequent</b> play is <b>over</b> is simply ludicrous imo.

As to your other statement regarding my competency as an official simply because I didn't agree with your misguided(imo) philosophy, well, the newer, kindlier and gentlier(sic) JR chooses not to respond to that.

You may not like or agree with me personally, but it might behoove you to maybe think about your position when others beside myself disagree vehemently with it. Believe it or not, posters like Nevada and BZ really, really do know what they are talking about. These guys are very knowledgable officials- on rules, mechanics and philosophy. I always have respected their opinions fully, even though we may have happened to disagree every now and then.

Lah me.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 07:11 AM]

[/B][/QUOTE]

So some HS association in N. California is the pinnacle of basketball officiating knowledge?

When they use announcerspeak like over the back, they have nothing to offer.

[/B][/QUOTE]

What the heck are you referring to? Who has nothing to offer? Neither I nor anyone wrote about "over the back."

[/B][/QUOTE]

Zip, nada, zero.

Any philosophy taken to the extreme and taken in absolutes is dangerous.

So your opinion makes you a good official, and disagreeing with it makes you a bad one?

[/B][/QUOTE]

I never wrote I am a better official than you or anyone else. You seem to have this chip on your shoulder that causes you to side with a particular person or group.

The person or persons, who disagree with what I have written, do so with intent to dehumanize myself and others.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well....

I'd work with Nevadaref and JR, on their death beds, putting their last breath into the whistle, making the right call, before I'd work with the likes of you.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I never wrote I would never work with another official and I never would decide on not working with you or any other basketball official. I don't kiss up to your on line buddy ref's nor would I ever ignore an assignment to work games with another basketball official solely based on posted information.

[/B][/QUOTE]

The word clueless comes to mind.:rolleyes:

[/B][/QUOTE]

In your own opinion, continue to roll your eyes and search for your own identity. Try being a team person and stop kissing up to others.

I guess that you don't feel like answering those questions, right, Johnny? Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me.

What may surprise you is that I possibly might just happen to understand the value of a delayed whistle on a play. And you also may be surprised that I most certainly do agree with and advocate that concept. And, seriously, I read the Tower Concept before you even dreamed of becoming an official. However, to recommend delaying your whistle until a <b>subsequent</b> play is <b>over</b> is simply ludicrous imo.

As to your other statement regarding my competency as an official simply because I didn't agree with your misguided(imo) philosophy, well, the newer, kindlier and gentlier(sic) JR chooses not to respond to that.

You may not like or agree with me personally, but it might behoove you to maybe think about your position when others beside myself disagree vehemently with it. Believe it or not, posters like Nevada and BZ really, really do know what they are talking about. These guys are very knowledgable officials- on rules, mechanics and philosophy. I always have respected their opinions fully, even though we may have happened to disagree every now and then.

Lah me.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 07:11 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]

One major problem would be you comprehending my post with your own understanding that I wrote to always hold my whistle until a play a new subsequent play has begun. I don’t care how many years you have officiated basketball games. It does not mean you are a better official than someone who has 1 or 2 years. Years have nothing to do with being a good official. You always write to put others down and to create yourself as being better than everyone else.

Why bring others in to this reply? Do you need others to support you? I have not stated I dislike or like you. I merely disagree with your reply, not to include Tom, Dick or Harry. Your knowledge is well respected by me and maybe others. The topic isn’t about you or me, yet you seem to bring it to such lows. Try sticking to the topic and not to write to belittle a person.

From your article you supplied:

I would like to point out a couple of areas where I feel we tend to call too many fouls rather than following the "Tower Philosophy" One of the areas is the over the back contact on rebounds. I think many of us have made that call and then wondered to ourselves why in the devil we blew the whistle.

Funny, you are putting down others for not reading your post, yet you did not even read your own.

You told two officials...both of whom I respect...that them not agreeing with your opinion made you question their ability to officiate, so again you reading your own posts, or not?

Experience and quality are not the same thing, but, one of the main ingredients to being good is realizing you don't know everything and never will.

You are a long way from realizing that.

In your own opinion, continue to roll your eyes and search for your own identity. Try being a team person and stop kissing up to others.
[/B][/QUOTE]

How many contradictory statements can one have in a paragraph?

In your opinion = I have my own thoughts.

Search for your own idenity = Hmmm, I thought I had my own opinion, perhaps I need YOUR identity.

Try being a team person = I thought you wanted me to be an individual?

Stop kissing up to others = Isn't that being a team person?

I'm confused.:rolleyes:

[Edited by blindzebra on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 08:13 AM]

One major problem would be you comprehending my post with your own understanding that I wrote to always hold my whistle until a play a new subsequent play has begun. I don’t care how many years you have officiated basketball games. It does not mean you are a better official than someone who has 1 or 2 years. Years have nothing to do with being a good official. You always write to put others down and to create yourself as being better than everyone else.

Why bring others in to this reply? Do you need others to support you? I have not stated I dislike or like you. I merely disagree with your reply, not to include Tom, Dick or Harry. Your knowledge is well respected by me and maybe others. The topic isn’t about you or me, yet you seem to bring it to such lows. Try sticking to the topic and not to write to belittle a person.
[/B][/QUOTE](a) I have never posted anywhere or at any time that I am a better official than someone who has 1 or 2 years.
(b) I will put <b>"you always write to put others down and to create yourself as being better than everyone else"</b> in the same basket as <b>"making youself feel like the god of officiating"</b> and <b>"based on your written words, you are not a very good official"</b>. I think that those statements speak for themselves and there's no need for me to respond to them any further, other than to say they hardly go hand-in-hand with <b>"Your knowledge is well respected by me"</b>. Whatever.
(c)I respect the opinions of the others that have responded to you in this thread- i.e. Nevada, BZ, BITSy amongst others too numerous to mention. They have all earned that respect (for whatever <b>that</b> is worth :D) by previously displaying an excellent knowledge of the rules, mechanics and philosophies of basketball officiating. Now, having said that, if you've read this forum for a while, then you haven't been paying much attention. We disagree with each other occasionally- sometimes very vehemently also. We hardly "kiss up to each other", as you put it. I think that we do respect each other though, no matter how strongly we might disagree at times.

Bottom line, Johnny. I respect <b>your</b> right to have <b>your</b> opinion. I think that your opinion in this particular thread is completely wrong. I personally wouldn't advise anybody at any level to follow your advice. That's just <b>my</b> opinion though. If you wanna let it go at that, fine with me. If you want to continue and make some more remarks about how bad an official I must be and detail some of my other failings too, well....have at it and that's fine with me too.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 08:35 AM]

Come on JR, ya know you love me.

Now get over here and plant a big wet one on me.:D

I apply the Tower Principle to contact during the basketball game, rather than to violations. I am sure I have applied this philosophy to violations from time to time (such as the point guard slightly carrying the ball as he dribbles up court with no pressure on him). However, there are certain violations that are black and white - did the ball bounce oob? was there a bc violation? was the ball kicked? was the pivot foot switched? etc. Violations are much more defined, whereas contact is judged before it becomes a foul.

I think to ref advantage/disadvantage with violations is the wrong mind set. In the case being discussed in this thread - defense going oob, the rules state this to be a violation. We do not have much of a choice (unless you deem it an unsportsmanlike conduct technical foul). You could purposely *miss* the call, but I disagree with the philosophy of holding the whistle until the play is overwith and then making a call. If you pass on the play, you live with it, otherwise, call it when it happens.

I think a ref who makes delayed violation calls after the play is done will lose credibility with partners and coaches. Just my opinion.

OK.

http://www.gifs.net/animate/bulldog56.gif

:D

I'd like to interrupt all the flaming, for a moment, to do a little apple-polishing.

Jurassic, oh wise and noble one, if we can't use A/D in the situation of a defender who steps oob just as the shooter breaks free for an open look (and I agree, there's no rules support for it!), then what do we do? What are you gonna tell your refs this fall, when someone asks the question?

Oh wise and noble one? First time I've ever been accused of that. And "flaming"? Geeze, I haven't told anyone to commit any anatomically-impossible acts on their own body, have I? At least, so far?:D

Juulie, to be honest, I don't have a clue as to what to tell anybody right now. I think that the new violation should logically apply to every player on the court, but I also can't see anybody calling this one on the defense immediately if that call THEN takes a legal advantage away from the offense. And imo delaying a violation call would just put you into the position of maybe getting yourself into a whole heap of doo-doo. I don't think that the purpose and intent of this rule change is to take any kind of advantage away from anybody . The FED just wants to keep the players on the court. I would imagine that we are gonna get some direction from the FED sometime on how to handle this particular play as related to a defensive player. Hopefully, that direction will come sooner rather than later- especially for the guys from Michigan like Mick who have fall ball.

Just ignoring a defensive violation might be the best solution, but imo that idea really only works if the defender doesn't affect the play later. If the defender does affect the play, you obviously can't let him get away with it. Unfortunately, later is too late- when it comes to calling this violation.

Sorry that I couldn't help at all on this one. Our new books are in but our secretary/treasurer is on holidays. I was hoping that there might be something in the new case book on it. Has anybody else who has already got the new books had a chance to hunt this one up?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 12:29 PM]

Oh yeah? Well, then, go touch your right elbow to your left ear!! So there!!! :p

I told my grand-daughter yesterday that it was impossible to lick your own elbow. That kept her busy for a while. Funny as hell to watch. Of course, Gramma says "You're mean, Woody".

Kinda makes life worth living. :D

Here's one for you Chuck: keep your feet on the floor & touch the top of your refrigerator...

Here's one for you Chuck: keep your feet on the floor & touch the top of your refrigerator... [/B][/QUOTE]Um, Dan, you're talkng to guy that has to stand on a chair to kick a duck in the a$$. Hell, might as well tell Chuck to keep his feet on the floor and try to touch the top of <b>anything</b>.
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Comic/Sport/tall.jpg

Hey, that hurts. See if I ever let you use my shower again!!!

Or drop the soap....like a good host. :eek:


QUESTION: "Where's Dan?"

ANSWER: "Oh, having a short one".