Referee Educates the crowd

theboys · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 07:50am

Funny incident Saturday.

My son plays in a HS varsity fall league. At one point, the referee called a double foul underneath. After reporting the foul, they proceeded to administer the throw-in by giving the ball to the offense on the baseline. The opposing coach, and a few people in the small crowd (also, a small gym), started complaining that he should go to the arrow. The ref stopped before he gave the ball to A1, walked out to the FT extended, and told the assembled crowd about the rule change. He then asked if anyone learned anything "today". Most of us raised our hands. My wife leaned over and said, "I learned two things. I didn't know the previous rule, either." It was a smart, nice gesture by the ref. Unfortunate that rules knowledge can't be dealt with that way more often.

Another funny - funny, peculiar - thing: throughout the game, both refs (two-man) had "apprentice" referees shadowing them. The apprentice refs mimic'd the calls, the counts, etc. It was strange to watch. I think I would have been embarrassed to do it. It was useful, though, in that, at every break the refs would explain things to the apprentices.

ChuckElias · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 08:06am

Quote:

Originally posted by theboys
the referee called a double foul underneath. After reporting the foul, they proceeded to administer the throw-in by giving the ball to the offense on the baseline.

Not to be nit-picky, but where was the ball when the double foul occured?

Other than that question, I agree that I like the way the ref handled it in that situation. Seems like an appropriate time and place, if you're going to try that sort of thing.

theboys · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 09:48am

It was underneath. Post players jockeying for position.

Have you ever seen, or been a part of, a teaching situation like they used (i.e., shadowing)?

ChuckElias · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 10:05am

Quote:

Originally posted by theboys
It was underneath. Post players jockeying for position.

You said the foul was underneath. Where was the ball when the foul occured? Was it also in the post?

Quote:

Have you ever seen, or been a part of, a teaching situation like they used (i.e., shadowing)?

Yes, but not for basketball. For lacrosse, I worked this way with new guys.

rainmaker · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 10:28am

I've worked on the floor, while a clinician ran up and down the sidelines, but I've never shadowed someone else that way.

theboys · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 11:00am

Ah, I understand, Chuck. The foul must have been off-ball, because, like the typical fan, I didn't see it!

So, lets say the ball was on the perimeter when the double foul was called. Would the ball be put in play on the sideline?

ChuckElias · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 11:12am

Quote:

Originally posted by theboys
Ah, I understand, Chuck. The foul must have been off-ball, because, like the typical fan, I didn't see it!

Honesty!!

Quote:

So, lets say the ball was on the perimeter when the double foul was called. Would the ball be put in play on the sideline?

Yes, that's correct. After a double foul, the new rule says that the ball is put in play at the point of interruption. This is different from what we usually see, which is putting the ball in play at the spot closest to where the foul occured.

Camron Rust · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 03:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

So, lets say the ball was on the perimeter when the double foul was called. Would the ball be put in play on the sideline?

Yes, that's correct. After a double foul, the new rule says that the ball is put in play at the point of interruption. This is different from what we usually see, which is putting the ball in play at the spot closest to where the foul occured.

Hmm, this particular element if the change hadn't occurred to me. I hadn't considered that "point of interruption" was to include the location of the ball...just who had possession.

Could it not also be interpreted to be the location of the foul since that is the point of the interruption? The interruption is the foul.

ChuckElias · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 03:47pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Could it not also be interpreted to be the location of the foul since that is the point of the interruption?

In a word, no. The game resumes exactly as it was when it was stopped. Since the ball was "on the perimeter", a sideline throw-in is how we resume. The "point" of interruption is not a place on the court.

The rule is very clear on this point. It's not just my interpretation. 4-36-2a says that play shall be resumed by "a throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred."

[Edited by ChuckElias on Sep 26th, 2005 at 04:54 PM]

Rick Durkee · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 03:59pm

How does Point of Interruption apply when the ball is in flight during a pass when the "interruption" occurred? Does it go back to where the ball was last controlled by a player?

ChuckElias · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 04:07pm

I haven't seen a case play on that sitch, but I would say that "you are where you were until you get where you're going" also applies to the ball. So put the ball back in play at the point closest to where the pass was released.

Jurassic Referee · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 06:07pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I haven't seen a case play on that sitch, but I would say that "you are where you were until you get where you're going" also applies to the ball. So put the ball back in play at the point closest to where the pass was released.

so.....you'll do that for a whistle but you won't do it if it was a horn.

Interesting.

M&M Guy · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 26, 2005, 09:30pm

So....now who has the mean streak?

Camron Rust · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 27, 2005, 01:04am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Could it not also be interpreted to be the location of the foul since that is the point of the interruption?

In a word, no. The game resumes exactly as it was when it was stopped. Since the ball was "on the perimeter", a sideline throw-in is how we resume. The "point" of interruption is not a place on the court.

The rule is very clear on this point. It's not just my interpretation. 4-36-2a says that play shall be resumed by "a throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred."

Thanks for the quote on the new rule...don't yet have my new books. It is quite clear from what you posted that it is where the ball is located when the foul occurs.

Camron Rust · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 27, 2005, 01:12am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I haven't seen a case play on that sitch, but I would say that "you are where you were until you get where you're going" also applies to the ball. So put the ball back in play at the point closest to where the pass was released.

Why? Based on your earlier post, it would be where the ball was located when the foul occurs. Why would it be any different if it was not under player control? If the ball is in mid-pass, that's is the spot that will be used to determine the throwin spot.

Scenario: A is down 1 with 5 seconds to go. A inbounds the ball deep in the backcourt to A1 who throws a long pass over a press to a breaking A4. Just before the pass arrives, A4 and B4 commit a double foul (not likely to happen but just assume it does for the sake of the discussion). If you go with a spot near the source of the pass, A will lose the time on the clock for the time that the ball was in the air and also the distance down the floor. I don' think this could be the desired outcome.