Since the new leaving the court violation appears to apply to both teams, I can see some teams trying to kill an opponent's breakaway layup by leaving the court.

This would give the defense a huge advantage. What is the proper way to handle this? My immediate reaction is to pass on this call, maybe even warn the offender and call an unsporting T the next time. But I haven't seen this addressed anywhere.

Surely there was discussion about this situation when the swinging the elbows violation was new? What was decided about that?

Back In The Saddle,
If you choose to make the call, use you Fox after the breakaway.
mick

How do you square that with the rules? The penalty explicity says that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs." I don't see how, by rule, you can have a delayed whistle on this. You either have to pass on the call entirely or cancel the result of the play and bring the ball back to the spot of the violation (which could be clear back to the far endline if that's where the opponent left the court).

Back In The Saddle,
I do not have to do that, but if that works for you, you are all set.
mick

[/B][/QUOTE]How do you square that with the rules? The penalty explicity says that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs." I don't see how, by rule, you can have a delayed whistle on this. You either have to pass on the call entirely or cancel the result of the play and bring the ball back to the spot of the violation (which could be clear back to the far endline if that's where the opponent left the court).
[/B][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________

Back in the Saddle, I don't understand why you don't think you CAN have a delayed whistle on this. It would be the same as whacking a coach or player who mouthed off at you before a scoring opportunity by the other team after the made basket, would it not?

Good grief.

The violation for leaving the floor is obviously meant to address situations where an offensive player goes OOB to gain an advantage.

The rule hasn't changed, just the penalty. Did you previously ever make this call? Are you suddenly going to go out and call this 10 times a game now, just because the penalty changed?

Does it say that it addresses the offensive team only? No. But Judas Priest, can we use just a little bit of common sense here? :mad:

Stop making things harder than they actually are.

How do you square that with the rules? The penalty explicity says that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs." I don't see how, by rule, you can have a delayed whistle on this. You either have to pass on the call entirely or cancel the result of the play and bring the ball back to the spot of the violation (which could be clear back to the far endline if that's where the opponent left the court).
[/B][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________

Back in the Saddle, I don't understand why you don't think you CAN have a delayed whistle on this. It would be the same as whacking a coach or player who mouthed off at you before a scoring opportunity by the other team after the made basket, would it not? [/B][/QUOTE]Well I'm not opposed to holding the whistle on this, but the rules don't support it. There is a case play to support holding the whistle on the T. Perhaps there will be one to support this call as well.

I guess I'll have to break down and buy the case book as soon as it's avialable too. :D

Good morning, Tony. Rough week? :D

Ignore it. The violation is to prevent a team from gaining an advantage by going OOB. You most certainly don't want to make it an advantage by blowing the whistle. We have precedent on this with the throwin plane violation in the last 5 seconds of a game where the case book clearly says to ignore it when the violating team will benefit.

Nope. Are you bored? It would seem so. You're making a lot out of nothing with some of this stuff.

Obviously you wouldn't stop the play. The defense isn't gaining an advantage by going OOB. That's why mick was trying to tell you. That's what Camron is telling you.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jul 30th, 2005 at 04:30 PM]

By rule, yup.

By common sense (and wanting to leave the gym alive), nope.

I think part of the problem is that there haven't been a lot of defensive violations in the past. The only ones I can think of before this are the kicked ball, and goaltending and BI. Last year they added the elbows thing, but that's still mostly going to be offensive. And there haven't been any violations away from the ball (except the elbows thing now). Since this is basically a new category of infraction, it could appear that previous assumptions are now up in the air. I would expect it to take a year or two for an accepted interp to settle into place.

Out of bounds?

What is the elbows thing? Something I just can't think of right now maybe? Probably.

What is the elbows thing? Something I just can't think of right now maybe? Probably

Excessive swinging of the elbows. You'll usually see this when a player secures a rebound, but it is also possible a defender could do this too, or have it happen with no team control (scramble for a rebound).

The Intent and Purpose of the Rules
 

There is a paragraph near the front of your rule book which covers this. It says something to the effect that a player/team shall not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Nuff said?

Re: The Intent and Purpose of the Rules
 

Apparently not, b/c we've had at least two or three threads on this exact subject. The new rule appears to apply equally to offense and defense but we have not seen any case book plays to guide us on the intent of applying it to the defender.

Re: Re: The Intent and Purpose of the Rules
 

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 <U>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</U>. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. <B>The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and <font color = red>eliminate this</font> tremendous advantage</B>.

It seems the intent is quite clear (i.e.,to eliminate the advantage to the offense) and to disregard the defense. :cool:
If we call the violation on the defense, then how could that not be an unintended disadvantage to the offense?

Calling the violation on the defense stops the play and awards a throw-in to the team with the ball, thus disrupting the offense. If a shot clock were being used, then, I guess, it may be proper to give the offense a re-set.
mick

Re: Re: Re: The Intent and Purpose of the Rules
 

Assuming, of course, that the state association says this situation should be a shot-clock reset.

I could see a problem where states don't work this into their shot clock rules, an assignor tells his/her refs to call this on the defense, and team A is now awarded a throw-in with 1 second left on the shot clock. (Or worse - one second left in the game.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Intent and Purpose of the Rules
 

Mark,
Assignors are also Interpreters?
Hmmm. Doesn't feel right.
mick

First, I want to say that I think this rule should apply to the offense only.

However, the rule, as written does not specify offense or defense. To assume that it applies to offense only is not right, even thouth the commentary example was for an offensive play. So the second point I want to make is that unless we see language that limits this violation to the offense only, there will be some refs who will apply it to both offense and defense.

I do not consider a defensive player leaving the court gaining an advantage for the defense. I can think of several situations where the defense could gain an advantage if the violation is called, but only if the violation is called. B1 leaves the court, no whistle, no advantage. B1 leaves the court, whistle, possible advantage for team B.

I outlined a couple of scenarios in the "rule changes" thread http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...7&pagenumber=4 where I thought the defense could benefit if the violation were to be called.

Advantage defense.
 

Set up outa bounds to take a charge --> Violation or Block.
We get to choose.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Intent and Purpose of the Rules
 

May not be the best set-up, but I'd be willing to bet that many of us have been told by an assignor of some sort how they feel about certain rules and how they are or are not called. Those interpretations may not be 100% correct rule-wise, but when in Roma . . .

Re: Advantage defense.
 

Just to spark a little discussion....

First one to occur is the one we call, isn't it. :D

Before the charge can happen OOB, the defender must be OOB, thus in violation before the collision. Otherwise the defender is not OOB and it is a charge.

Doesn't this sound a lot like a phantom travel call that is so common when there is a charge at mid-court when a player just receives the ball...except for, of course, the travel is really a made up call since it didn't really happen (I don't call it either).

If you are referring only to the sitch where the defense steps out during an open fast-break, in order to stop the play, then yes, you're right.

But for the defense to step oob around a screen in order to defend a shot is certainly and advantage and has been gained illegally. The times I've seen this is when the screener is under the basket, and an offensive player wants to get free to catch a pass for a quick shot. If the defense doesn't step oob, she gets screened, and the offensive play works. If the defender DOES step oob, she can get around the screen and has a chance to poke or intercept the pass. That's an advantage, illegally gained, and is one of the situations that the rule is meant to address -- or at least, it ought to be!

Posted by another official in this forum, a basketball official might consider giving a technical for unsporting behavior when a defensive player intentionally goes off the court for an unauthorized reason on a fast break or IMO you could hold your whistle on the play and let the offensive player score the lay up. But my reasoning for using advantage/disadvantage on a violation would be considered wrong by some or many OFFICIATING.COM members. Ask your association for their interpretation.

Re: Re: Advantage defense.
 

IMO if a defender is setup OOB, there shouldn't be any contact with the offensive player, unless he/she goes OOB as well.

If a defender is setup 99% in bounds and a toe on the line, I wouldn't consider that a violation and would call the block.

Good point. But, are you going to whistle it immediately or wait until the defender has intercepted or poked away the ball? Blowing the play dead immediately will disrupt the game, most likely unnecessarily. Withholding the whistle until the play is complete and then blowing the violation is not advisable either. Tweet, I am calling a violation on B1 after she blocked A1's shot because B1 stepped oob four seconds ago. So, to me, the only choice is to call the violation immediately. If we start calling those violations, then do we overlook violations that are clearly meant to disrupt the advantage of the offense ("Look Ref, I am oob, call the violation). I have visions of when the wrestler goes to the edge of the ring and sticks an arm or leg outside the ropes so the opponent has to break the hold.

I do agree that a defender going oob to get around a screen could give the defense the advantage of being in position to defend another player. I don't see a good solution until further direction is given from the rules committee.

The definition of leaving the court
 

In all of the discussion so far we haven't gotten too specific about how a player actually violates. I'm left wondering what the definition of leaving the court is. If a player touches the oob line, has he left the court, Does he need to be entirely oob to qualify? Is one foot entirely oob sufficient? What exactly is the definition of this new violation?

The committee's emphasis on playing the game on the court has previously focused on whether a defender is touching the oob line and how that affects block/charge. Surely the committee doesn't intend that any time anybody steps on any oob line they have left the court and have violated? Do they?

How exactly does a player leave the court?

Re: The definition of leaving the court
 

The rule covers leaving the court for an <b>unauthorized reason</b>-- iow, in order to gain an illegal advantage. Under the old rule, it was never a T if a player inadvertantly stepped on a line-- only if that player deliberately went OOB to gain an advantage. The only thing that has changed is the penalty- not the reason for the rule being in the book in the first place. This kinda goes hand-in-hand also with calling an automatic block on the defender if he's standing OOB. In that case, they felt that defender was gaining an illegal advantage on defense by being OOB.

If a player goes OOB inadvertantly and comes right back in, there's no problem- and no call, just like it's always been.

I agree 100%.

I agree 110%

Grrrrrrrrr! :mad:

As Elwood Blues said "We're on a mission from God".

Still trying to make your head explode.

Literally.

Re: Re: The definition of leaving the court
 

I'm not trying to be dumb here, nor am I trying to stir the pot. My previous understanding of this rule was that it was there to penalize deliberate, obvious unsporting behavior, not merely a technical violation of the rules. The one time I ever called this was when a kid went oob on the endline, ran entirely oob to the far three-point line and came back inbounds to catch a pass for an open shot. Because I considered that this was an unsporting behavior rule, I never questioned what the definition of leaving the court was. I figured it was like porn. ;)

I'm just trying to be a good little referee and understand not only the intent of the rule, but also the definitions required to enforce it. But the committee hasn't given us a definition. And frankly they're sending rather mixed signals. On the one hand there is the language: "leaving the court." Based on the block/charge/foot on the line rule, the committee's definition of "on the court" seems to mean entirely inbounds.

On the other hand, in their press release they share this blatant example: "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." There are three distinct aspects which make this example so egregious: the player's distance off the court, the distance which he travels before returning and the advantage gained by getting free of his defender.

Then they turn right around and effectively negate this very porn example with this very precisely worded statement: "The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court." That is long before we know how far the player will travel or what advantage he will gain. So those aspects would seem to have no bearing on the call. The committee seems to be saying the only criteria needed to judge this violation is the undefined act of leaving the court.

Obviously being entirely inbounds is not leaving the court. The phrase "outside the end line" is part of their blatant example of leaving the court. So the line between leaving and not leaving clearly lies somewhere in the range of those two extremes. But where exactly?

I'm not searching for opportunities to make this call. However, I may very well have to defend not making this call to an angry coach. I don't need porn, I need a definition.

Re: Re: Re: The definition of leaving the court
 

I'm not searching for opportunities to make this call. However, I may very well have to defend not making this call to an angry coach. I don't need porn, I need a definition. [/B][/QUOTE]The rule says that leaving the court for <b>"an unauthorized reason"</b> is a violation. Iow, it's still a judgement call- same as when the penalty was a "T". If a player didn't deliberately go OOB, in your opinion, then you don't have a call.

I think that you would apply the same criteria to the call now as you did before-- i.e. (a)did the player <b>deliberately</b> leave the court? (b)did the player then gain an advantage by deliberately leaving the court? If so, call the violation.

Well said BITS. We'll have to start calling you Justice Potter Stewart. I've had the same thoughts about this rule change over the summer. I've come the conclusion that the intent of the rule is to limit the offensive team (as far as the rule applies to the offense) to a specified area so that the defense has a fair chance, and the game is balanced, by only having to defend within that space.

Therefore, if the offensive player significantly increases the space where the defender has to guard him by using the OOB area that is gaining an advantage and thus merits a violation. One large step OOB certainly meets this, while a foot on the line while posting up or running the end line probably doesn't. That first is literally overstepping the prescribed bounds of the game while the latter is merely being brief OOB during the normal course of playing the game, which is bound to happen given that the game is played in a limited space. It still is a judgment call.

For the record, I firmly believe that the defense has to play the game within these same space limits and should be penalized for not doing so. It is just that the violation has been shown to be a problematic penalty when applied to the defense.

BTW Justice Stewart made his famous quip, "I know it when I see it," about obscenity, not porn. The difference being that obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment, while adult porn is legal. Just a technical FYI since we all enjoy learning from each other on this forum.

Nevadaref, where have you been and where is AAR?

Vegas 07!

Re: Re: Re: The definition of leaving the court
 

IMO you are completely overthinking the entire issue.

There is no contradiction in the press release. If you look at the trajectory of the player as he comes OOB you can easily tell if he's gotten OOB inadvertently or not by what he does within the first step or 2. I believe what the press release is telling us is as soon as you judge the player is intending to break the rule call it. This differs from the NCAA version which requires us to wait until the offending player comes back in bounds & is first to touch the ball.

More generally, as someone has already said the only difference this year is the penalty. IOW call it the same way. If your coaches are required to attend a rules meeting there should be no problem at all, assuming you call it the way the rule gets explained to them.

Re: Re: Re: The definition of leaving the court
 

Now c'mon, BITS. No, you're not. Do you really think the intent of this rule is to allow the defense to force a violation by running OOB while A1 is on a fast break?

That was your initial post that started this thread. Now surely you realize that this is not the intent of the rule. Therefore, the statement above is completely false, is't it? :)

Camron has already told you what you needed to know. "The violation is to prevent a team from gaining an advantage by going OOB."

Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of leaving the court
 

No, Tony, I don't think that is the intent of the rule, and I have no intention of making that call. However the actual wording of the rule seems to support it, maybe even require it.

Dan is right, I am overthinking it. I can't help myself. This was an obscure little backwater rule buried at the end of the book for years until the committee shined their spotlight on it recently. The more I think about it, the more questions I have, none of which are answered by the rulebook. That's why I keep tacking new questions onto this thread.

I'm a bear of very little brain. I need to think through things before they happen on the court if I'm going to make the right call, doubly so if I'm going to have to explain the call (or no-call) to a coach.


[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Aug 7th, 2005 at 02:34 AM]

Yo
 

How do you square that with the rules? The penalty explicity says that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs." I don't see how, by rule, you can have a delayed whistle on this. You either have to pass on the call entirely or cancel the result of the play and bring the ball back to the spot of the violation (which could be clear back to the far endline if that's where the opponent left the court).
[/B][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________

Back in the Saddle, I don't understand why you don't think you CAN have a delayed whistle on this. It would be the same as whacking a coach or player who mouthed off at you before a scoring opportunity by the other team after the made basket, would it not? [/B][/QUOTE]


You betcha. Message sent. Justice served.

Keep in mind that, as rule based systems go, the Federation rules are not very well written. There are plenty of inherently undecidable propositions created by the rules.

I've been spending a lot of time in CA lately, but T and I are around.

PS I hear that NBA is imposing a one week ban on basketball betting at ALL of the Vegas casinos as part of the All-Star game deal. WHY??? I just don't see the point.

Interesting that they will allow the All-Star game to be played there, but won't put a franchise in that city though.

Re: Yo
 

No, no, no.

There is a specific rule reference allowing a delayed whistle in the case of an unsportsmanlike conduct technical on team B (10.4.1 E). Note that the rule reference is from 10-4 - technical fouls.

You may be able to get away with a delayed whistle on this violation. However, there is NO rule support whatsoever for it. In addition, it could bite you in the a** if anything happens in the intervening period between the player stepping OOB and you blowing the whistle.

Re: Re: Yo
 

Mark: a good example of this particular discretion is when A1 is on a breakaway and B1 fouls A2 before A1 has picked the ball up for the layup/dunk. This is not covered by the rule exception designed to thwart this kind of behavior . . . but, unless the foul is outrageous, a T (unsportsmanlike conduct - you can always call that, yuh know!) or an intentional personal is overkill. Just delay the whistle slightly . . .

Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

Mark: a good example of this particular discretion is when A1 is on a breakaway and B1 fouls A2 before A1 has picked the ball up for the layup/dunk. This is not covered by the rule exception designed to thwart this kind of behavior . . . but, <font color = red>unless the foul is outrageous, a T (unsportsmanlike conduct - you can always call that, yuh know!)</font> or an intentional personal is overkill. Just delay the whistle slightly . . . [/B][/QUOTE]There is <b>no</b> rule in the book that will allow you to call a "T" for a contact foul during a live ball. You cannot call a "T" on B1 on this play and hold your whistle until later. The rules will NOT let you do that. You can only delay non-contact unsporting "T"s if the other team is on a breakaway.

Also, on this play, if B1 fouls A2 before A1 has picked the ball up, you have 4 options--and 4 options <b>ONLY</b>- (1)call a common personal foul on B1(2)call an intentional personal foul on B1(3)call a flagrant personal foul on B1 or(4)ignore the foul and let A1 complete the play. If you do call a foul, you HAVE to call it immediately and kill the play. You CANNOT defer this call.There is absolutely no rules backing that will allow you to do that.

Wrong advice completely.

Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

Overkill? If you call the foul in this case on a delayed whistle you have given the offense two points for the lay in and now the ball back. The intentional foul call immediately or the tech call would negate the layup and give two free throws instead with team A getting the ball back. Your delayed whistle is actually more of a punishment to team B than actually calling an intentional foul on the play when it happened because the two points are already scored (if you go with a common foul away from the ball). If you have an intentional foul away from the play before the shooting motion in effort to prevent an easy layup, call the intentional foul. Delaying could get you into a mess. What is A2 retaliates against B1 because he did not hear a whistle? What if A1 gets fouled somehow by someone else - now you have two fouls, one against the shooter and one away from the ball. I do not advocate a delayed whistle in this case.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

My thoughts exactly (just articulated much better - thanks Jurrasic).

Yoyo
 

Dexter, Dexter, Dexter!
Those were not "exactly" your thoughts.
Your thoughts stopped.
If they had been "your" thoughts, your fine education and technical skills would have overcome your sloth of mind.

JR's synergy of mind and body once again proves that your Dexter is Dextered.

Work on that.
mick

Re: Yoyo
 

Yes, sir. :(

Re: Re: Yoyo
 

Shouldn't you say "YES SIR! WORKING ON THAT DEXTER RIGHT NOW! SIR!!"

:)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

There is <b>no</b> rule in the book that will allow you to call a "T" for a contact foul during a live ball. You cannot call a "T" on B1 on this play and hold your whistle until later. The rules will NOT let you do that. You can only delay non-contact unsporting "T"s if the other team is on a breakaway.

Also, on this play, if B1 fouls A2 before A1 has picked the ball up, you have 4 options--and 4 options <b>ONLY</b>- (1)call a common personal foul on B1(2)call an intentional personal foul on B1(3)call a flagrant personal foul on B1 or(4)ignore the foul and let A1 complete the play. If you do call a foul, you HAVE to call it immediately and kill the play. You CANNOT defer this call.There is absolutely no rules backing that will allow you to do that.

Wrong advice completely. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh balderdash. As you would say, sheer idiocy. Fine, call a flagrant intentional personal foul if you like - but in any case, don't allow the clown to take away the legitimately earned two points. Just blow slow.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

Oh balderdash. As you would say, sheer idiocy. Fine, call a flagrant intentional personal foul if you like - but in any case, don't allow the clown to take away the legitimately earned two points. Just blow slow. [/B][/QUOTE]Balderdash?

Find somebody with a rule book and ask them if the ball is dead after a made basket and what rules then come into place re: contact fouls.

If you ever find any rule(s) anywhere that will back up what you are proposing, feel free to cite them for us.

Until then, anybody that would ever try to follow your advice is making one helluva big mistake imo.

Btw, what is a flagrant intentional personal foul? I've never heard of that particular type of foul and I can't seem to find any mention of anything like that in the rule book either. Is that another rule that you're making up yourself?

Lah me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

Balderdash?

Find somebody with a rule book and ask them if the ball is dead after a made basket and what rules then come into place re: contact fouls.

If you ever find any rule(s) anywhere that will back up what you are proposing, feel free to cite them for us.

Until then, anybody that would ever try to follow your advice is making one helluva big mistake imo.

Btw, what is a flagrant intentional personal foul? I've never heard of that particular type of foul and I can't seem to find any mention of anything like that in the rule book either. Is that another rule that you're making up yourself?

Lah me.

[/B][/QUOTE]

What is the penalty for an intentional personal foul?

What is the penalty for a flagrant personal foul?


As for your tightness, I know (and sure, you know just the opposite) 'high level' officials, high school, D3 college, who take exactly the approach I have suggested. Justice is served, sleight of hand is all that's required.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

What is the penalty for an intentional personal foul?

What is the penalty for a flagrant personal foul?


As for your tightness, I know (and sure, you know just the opposite) 'high level' officials, high school, D3 college, who take exactly the approach I have suggested. Justice is served, sleight of hand is all that's required. [/B][/QUOTE]I know what the penalties for both those fouls are. Now how is that relevant to anything that we're discussing in this thread? I also know that there's no such thing as a flagrant intentional personal foul, which is something that you didn't know obviously.

As for my tightness, I'm also much too old to be tight anymore.

You're right on one thing though. I sureashell certainly <b>don't</b> know any "high level" official that would ever delay the call until a basket was made and then call a delayed intentional or flagrant personal foul on a off-ball foul that occured before the basket was made.

I also hope that I will <b>never,ever</b> know any official that would do something like that either- at any level.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

Just for my own edification, JR, remind me what you'd call or not call if there was a foul off-ball that is committed to stop an undefended fast break.

And then bring me some popcorn!

Two choices- whichever feels right on that particular play.

1) Ignore it completely.
2) Intentional personal foul.

I doubt very much that any defender would ever take the contact to the flagrant stage just to try and stop a break.

I can explain (or sell) either of those choices if asked. I can't logically explain the late whistle option laid out above. It's never a good idea imo to call something that you can't explain later.

What would you do, Juulie?

Two choices- whichever feels right on that particular play.

1) Ignore it completely.
2) Intentional personal foul.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yo
 

Nicely reasoned. Thanks.

I agree my use of 'overkill' was just wrong. As you point out, my penalty is more Draconian - good, that's the point -don't be being a moron by trying something you probably know is outside the spirit - if not the rules. I still generally recommend what I recommended. Not is the lag time is 4 seconds fer Chrissake. Then you're gonna hafta call the foul away from the ball. But when the lag is slight, well - I thought the guy had picked the ball up when the foul happened . . .

Jeff T.

I had a play in the middle of the 4th quarter between two rivals last year that was similar. I was the lead ahead of a fastbreak 2-2. The A1 dumped the ball to A2 on the wing when the A1 reached the top of the key. B1 attempted to take a charge from the A1, but really flopped. B1 then proceded to do a "leg take-down" on A1. Meanwhile A2 is driving for the lay up, having beaten B2. By the time I realize what B1 did, A2 is in his shooting motion. I blow the whistle.

My ruling: The bucket counts because A2 was in his motion, common foul on B1, A1 shoots 1 and 1.

Since this play happened at the end of the season, it has bothered me since - mainly because of the timing. What I did not do - and I believe was my biggest mistake - I did not talk with my partner on the timing of what he saw. If it really happened that way, then I can defend the call. If it did not happen that way, if the foul by B1 was before A2 started his motion, then I did the delay whistle and got it wrong.

I guess all I am saying is that calling it that way bothered me. Even though it was a bang-bang play, lots of explanations were needed for the coach and the home town crowd was not happy.

Right outa case book play 6.7SitD. Quit second-guessing yourself. It ain't healthy.

Ref in PA,
I applaud your conscientiousness. Perhaps the foul occurred prior to the start of the trying motion, perhaps it occurred after. The timing of the foul is what matters, not when you blew your whistle.

You did the best you could on that particular play. You learned from it. You will handle it better next time.

I do want to ask about what you characterize as a "leg take-down." You wrote that you called a common foul.

Was this action done out of anger for not getting the PC call or as a last ditch effort to prevent the offensive player from getting wide open for a lay-in? Was it a purposeful trip? If so, that sounds intentional to me.

I did feel the act was intentional by B1 in entangling his legs with A1, but at the same time B1 disguised it by attempting a get up move. B1 made sure there was contact tried to make it look innocent as A1 fell to the floor. B1 did a similar play earlier in the game and it was a no-call in my partner's primary. I caught the play out of the corner of my eye and wondered "Did I just see what I thought I saw?" So, when I saw the move again, I feel I recognized it for what it was worth.

These were my options that I thought about in that split second you have before you announce and sell the call:

1. No Bucket, intentional foul on B1.
2. Bucket, intentional foul on B1.
3. No Bucket, common foul on B1.
4. Bucket, common foul on B1.
5. Flagrant foul on B1.

I asked myself two questions - do I count the bucket and how severe should the penalty be for the foul. I must admit I compromised my position on the foul after I decided to count the bucket. I did not think B1's actions were flagrant with intent to injure, but they were a non basketball move in my book and I probably could have sold that call also. I felt the fairest thing to do was to call a common foul. The call was sold, the coach and crowd did not like it, but what else is new? I just wish I felt better about the timing of the play.

If I had of consulted my partner and he felt the contact away from the ball was before the shooting motion of A2, I would have called the intentional foul.

I did learn from this and by sharing my goof, hopefully others can learn from it also.