Rules Myths

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Whatinthehell are all you people talking about?

BillyMac didn't say a damn thing about a dunk in his original statement. He said it is illegal to hang on the rim if a player was fouled. PERIOD!! That's an all-inclusive statement, folks. It covers all of the possible different scenarios, not just a dunk. For instance, it covers the case of a defender whacking the shooter as soon as he picked the ball up for a lay-up, with the shooter then continuing his normal motion, laying the ball off the board, and then following through and grabbing the ring and hanging from it. It could also cover a player going up for a tip, being fouled without ever touching the ball, and then grabbing the ring despite never having been put off-balance by the foul and also having nobody underneath him. According to Billy's original verbiage, it's legal to hang from the rim in that case too. Um, don't think so.

I was simply commenting on your point response. If a player is fouled while trying to dunk, I am going to allow that player some leeway. I was not responding to you to debate every possible situation. I was responding because you said a player could not hang on the rim if fouled during a dunk. Take that up with someone else. No reason to get all hot and bothered by it. I am just giving you one possible take. You do not have to agree with my opinion.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Before I tell you to shut up, let me ask 1 question:

this includes dunks too, right?

TIA.

Of course it does. Dunks are included under the same criteria as to how this rule is supposed to be administered. You can legally hang from the rim only if you're doing so to prevent injury. Period. Whether the player hanging from the rim was fouled or not fouled isn't really relevant to the call at all. Whether the player was dunking the ball at the time isn't relevant at all either. And whether the player was fouled while dunking the ball similarly ain't really relevant at all. Being fouled while dunking the ball doesn't give any ballplayer license to subsequently hang on the rim. The only judgement you have to make on this play is "Is the player hanging from the rim to prevent an injury?". Forget everything else. That was my point.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 19th, 2005 at 04:42 AM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Of course it does. Dunks are included under the same criteria as to how this rule is supposed to be administered.

That's what I thought...and that's whyinthehell we're talking about dunking.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

That's what I thought...and that's whyinthehell we're talking about dunking.

Shut up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

That's what I thought...and that's whyinthehell we're talking about dunking.

[/B][/QUOTE]Dunks are no different than any other circumstance. If you hang on the ring after a dunk to prevent an injury, it's legal. If you hang on the ring after a dunk and you're not preventing an injury, it's a "T". Straight judgement call. I must be missing something. What's so difficult about that?

My point was, and still is, that a foul occurring isn't really a part of the criteria used to determine whether a "T" should be called or not. The only criteria used is "preventing an injury". N'est-ce pas?

Btw, couldn't help myself on the previous post. There's gotta be a l'il bit of "you" in "me" somewhere. I'm taking something to get rid of it though.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Dunks are no different than any other circumstance. If you hang on the ring after a dunk to prevent an injury, it's legal. If you hang on the ring after a dunk and you're not preventing an injury, it's a "T". Straight judgement call. I must be missing something. What's so difficult about that?

What you're missing is I agree with you completely.

My point was, and still is, that a foul occurring isn't really a part of the criteria used to determine whether a "T" should be called or not. The only criteria used is "preventing an injury". N'est-ce pas?

[/b]

Is that cheese I smell on your breath? And no, I do not want to have your rifle...hey! where you running off to??? Come back....

Btw, couldn't help myself on the previous post. There's gotta be a l'il bit of "you" in "me" somewhere. I'm taking something to get rid of it though. [/B]

Might I suggest Drano?

[Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 19th, 2005 at 10:15 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Might I suggest Drano?

[/B]

I'll give that a shot if the Raid doesn't work.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

What you're missing is I agree with you completely.

Then.......nevermind.

[BillyMac]

Thanks to the many basketball forum members, especially Jurassic Referee, for their input to my "Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules" handout.

For background purposes, this handout was prepared by me as part of a presentation I was asked to give to a college coaching basketball class. I received a lot of help from our IAABO Board #6 interpreter. Our board may use this handout at our annual preseason coaches meeting. It will be suggested that coaches make copies of this to give to their players and (especially) parents. The handout was never designed for officials, so the language is not as precise as would be expected if this handout was designed to train officials. This "Misunderstood Rules" handout was designed for coaches, players, and parents.

Here are some of my recent changes to the handout with rule book or case book citations for making, or not making, changes:

2) (Change) It is legal to hang on the rim if a player is avoiding and injury to himself or herself or another player. (Rule 10-3-4 exception). The hardest part of being a 25 year veteran official isn't the rules, it's the rule changes. At one time it was always illegal to hang on the rim, then it changed to allowing it if fouled and avoiding an injury, and now it's changed to anytime to avoid an injury. (Thanks Jurassic Referee).

10) (Change) Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the hand is under the ball or when the ball rests in the hand. (Rule 4-15-4b). The part about the "hand under the ball" is by our Board #6 interpretation. We are taught by our interpreter that if the palm of the hand is facing the ceiling and if the dribbler is gaining an advantage, it's a carry (illegal dribble). (Thanks Jurassic Referee).

13) (No Change) The inbounding player does not have a plane restriction, but has five seconds to release the ball and it must come directly onto the court. (Case Book 7.6.3). The inbounder's restrictions are explained in #11 on the handout. The defender's restrictions are explained in #12 on the handout. (Note to Jurassic Referee: An inbounder can step through the imaginery plane, as long as they don't step onto the playing court).

14) (Change) If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he or she can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inblounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily and must immediately return inbounds. (Case Book 7.1.1). (Thanks Jurassic Referee).

16) (Change) The hand is part of the ball at all times. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts. (Rule 4-24-2). The reference to sound is not part of the rule but is to counter coaches saying "I heard it from here". (Thanks Jurassic Referee).

24) (No Change) The intent of the three-second rule is not to allow an offensive player to gain an advantage. Referees will not call this violation if the player is not gaining an advantage. (Rule 9.7 and The Intent and Purpose of the Rules (beginning of the Rule Book).

I'm really pleased that only six of my thirty "Most Misunderstood Rules" received some form of criticism. If any members of the forum can suggest any other changes, please post them as part of the "Rules Myths" thread. I would like to finalize this handout and have it ready for coaches at our November preseason coaches meeting. Please remember that this handout is not designed for officials, but is designed to be used by coaches, players, and parents. Thanks for all your help.

[Edited by BillyMac on Aug 19th, 2005 at 09:50 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BillyMac


10) (Change) Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the hand is under the ball or when the ball rests in the hand. (Rule 4-15-4b). The part about the "hand under the ball" is by our Board #6 interpretation. We are taught by our interpreter that if the palm of the hand is facing the ceiling and if the dribbler is gaining an advantage, it's a carry (illegal dribble).

Just a few comments on this one-fwiw......

Back about 20 years or so ago, we were all taught that if the dribbler's hand went past 90 degrees while in contact with the ball, we were then supposed to automatically call palming/carrying the ball. They even had a case book play put in for a while saying this. Then....they finally took that whole concept out because they discovered that it wasn't necessarily so. There was also a lot of discussion at that time about the "hand under the ball" idea too. One of the points that was brought up was that concept also didn't cover all situations either. One of the plays mentioned was a player "tapping" the ball upwards from below during a dribble- without touching the ball a second time before it hit the floor or letting the ball come to rest while tapping it. They put R4-15-2 into the book to clarify that particular case iirr. So... to then try and simplify the call for us dummies, they just changed it to a straight official's judgement as to whether the ball actually does come to rest in the dribbler's hand(R4-15-4a&b).

Just a l'il history(if I remember right- which isn't a lock by any means), and that's why I still don't agree with your interpreter about using the "hand under the ball" part. R4-15-2 already sez that statement is wrong.

Great idea and great job making this list up. Should save you a lot of headaches.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 19th, 2005 at 10:19 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BillyMac

24) (No Change) The intent of the three-second rule is not to allow an offensive player to gain an advantage. Referees will not call this violation if the player is not gaining an advantage. (Rule 9.7 and The Intent and Purpose of the Rules (beginning of the Rule Book).

Gotta say that I still don't agree with you on this one either. The problem is gonna arise if and when one of your officials makes a 3-second call. I'll guarantee that you're gonna have coaches screaming (1) my player wasn't gaining an advantage -and (2) their player did the exact same thing at t'other end and you never called it. Jmo but be prepared. Personally, I'd mention the parts about 3-seconds not applying when the ball is in the backcourt,stopping when team control is lost on a shot or letting a player complete a move to the basket, but you have no rules support to make a broad statement like using advantage/disadvantage on this one- even though we all do. The written rule is about as black-and-white as it can get, and trying to say that a vague statement in the preamble to the rules supersedes it is a heckuva stretch. Personally, I wouldn't mention at all that you're using advantage/disadvantage on any violation- even if you are. Again jmo.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 19th, 2005 at 10:22 PM]

[BillyMac]

Jurassic Referee has convinced me by his rule citations to change #10 on my "Most Misunderstood Rules" handout:

10) (Change) Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball rests in the hand. (Rule 4-15-4a,b). (Thanks to Jurassic Referee).

I still have not been convinced to change #24 on the handout:

24) (No Change) The intent of the three-second rule is not to allow an offensive player to gain an advantage. Referees will not call this violation if the player is not gaining an advantage. (Rule 9.7 and The Intent and Purpose of the Rules (beginning of the Rule Book). The Intent and Purpose of the Rules is an important part of the Rule Book and should not be ignored. This part of the Rule Book is not just a "vague statemant". It is listed at beginning of the book because all the rules are based on this philosophy (which I believe is refered to as the "Tower Philosophy"). I have summary of this philosophy as #1 on my handout:

1) (No Change) It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

Basketball Forum members: Please keep those ideas coming. Originally this was edited by only myself and my Board #6 interpreter. With hundreds of active forum members commenting on this handout, we can get it perfect by the time it's passed out to coaches, players, and parents during the preseason. I'm not only looking for changes, but (as in the original "Rules Myths" post) I'm also looking for additions to the list (although I don't want to go much higher than thirty listings (so maybe I need some deletions, please comment).

I look forward to your continued help in this task.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BillyMac
I still have not been convinced to change #24 on the handout:

24) (No Change) The intent of the three-second rule is not to allow an offensive player to gain an advantage. Referees will not call this violation if the player is not gaining an advantage. (Rule 9.7 and The Intent and Purpose of the Rules (beginning of the Rule Book). The Intent and Purpose of the Rules is an important part of the Rule Book and should not be ignored. This part of the Rule Book is not just a "vague statemant". It is listed at beginning of the book because all the rules are based on this philosophy (which I believe is refered to as the "Tower Philosophy"). I have summary of this philosophy as #1 on my handout:

I agree with Jurassic about describing how A/D applies to the 3-second rule. There are coaches and parents who will understand this, and see how it is used appropriately, but there are many who can't see past the end of their own noses, and won't leave you alone about how unfair you're being. I think it would be best to just not discuss it at all.

And I don't think you should discuss the Tower Philosophy, either. Most of these folks don't have any commitment to being objective, or to understanding how we do our job. To them, it always looks like their kid got whacked, and their kid never whacked anyone. How could A/D apply to that!? I'm thinking it would be best not to waste time and paper on something that isn't going to sink in.

Better to concentrate on a few basics that are easy to demonstrate and describe. Like that there's no 3-seconds when there's no team control, and so on.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BillyMac
Jurassic Referee has convinced me by his rule citations to change #10 on my "Most Misunderstood Rules" handout:

10) (Change) Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball rests in the hand. (Rule 4-15-4a,b). (Thanks to Jurassic Referee).

You probably were a little premature in thanking me. I'm anal as hell some times when it comes to the rules.

Advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations-- it usually only applies to incidental physical contact occuring somewhere on the court. Iow, it either IS or ISN'T a violation. If you leave any doubt in there, it's pretty much guaranteed that your coaches/parents are gonna be doubting you every time that you do call it. And one official's concept of advantage/disadvantage is not necessarily the same as another official's idea of advantage/disadvantage- even on the same play or within the same crew. You're also asking a helluva lot of your newer officials too, if you want them to start calling violations by advantage/disadvantage. They just don't have the experience to do something like that consistently, and they sureasheck ain't gonna be calling it uniformly.

Btw, you can take the paragraph above and apply it to the "three seconds" call also that's on your list-imo. Good luck on getting uniformity on this call from all of your officials at both ends of the court. And if you don't get uniformity after laying out to your coaches/parents how it's GONNA be called, well...again, good luck to you.

And.....the violation above ISN'T for the ball coming to rest in the hand either. That's perfectly legal. You're creating more doubt for the people that this list is intended for if you write it up that way.The dribble simply ENDS if the ball comes to rest in the hand. Rule 4-15-4a&b. When that happens, the dribbler can subsequently commit one of two violations. He can travel while the ball is at rest, as per R4-43-2. He can also dribble again, which would be an illegal second dribble under R9-5. Your choice. You also have your choice of which of 2 signals to use also--i.e. #s 19 or 20.Jmo, but I think #20 is more descriptive and appropriate when letting others know why you made the call.

Again, Billy, jmo fwiw.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I'm anal as hell some times when it comes to the rules.

We didn't notice.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
You probably were a little premature in thanking me.

Nah, you did a good job.