Alright i just wanted to get some opinions on people's judgment on callin a player control foul on a situation like this one:

A1 in the key with B1 right infront of her, A1 gets a pass bends down and takes a step towards B1, displacing A1 slightly, A1 then stands upright and realizes B1 will block her shot so she passes it outside again. Couple of passes later A1 is in the key again gets the pass again, and you got... she does the same thing again, however this time she displaced B1 enough to make the basket... TWEEEEEETTT , NO BASKET, PLAYER CONTROL, A1 and the coach went crazy , they keep askin me how i can call a player control when all she was doin was gettin her position ( or somethin stupid like that).

I didn't call it the first time cause nobody was disadvantaged but it definately influenced my decision to call it the second time because a) she attempted it before and b) she scored a asket because of it.

I guess my question is when would u guys call a player control in situations liek this, as in the pushes to get a better shot, would you call a PC if thsi gurl had scored on the first try??

thanx for the input

Advantage/Disadvantage! Did A1 gain an advantage by putting her shoulder in B1 to create space?

I'm not sure that constitutes a player control foul. A1 is allowed to pivot freely. It's a move that is very common in the boys game. Rarely have I seen an offensive foul called. However, if the arm get extended and a push occurs, its offensive everytime.

Really? So I can pivot into the defensive player who is standing in front of me with legal guarding position, displace them with my shoulder and it isn't a foul?

A1 is <b>not</b> allowed to displace a defender who has a legal position while pivoting.

I think it all in how you determine "displacing." If by displacing you mean, dropping a shoulder in just to knock a player back to gain the advantage of space so that you can get your shot off, then it is definetly a foul. If by displacing you mean pivoting into a defensive player creating enough contact to cause a defensive player to rock back on his/her heels then, to me that is not a foul. It happens a lot. I dont think it is any different than a post player backing or bumping down a defender. There are limits of course.

The limit being, you can't do it. If I back down a player with LGP, I've gained an advantage. That's a foul.

If the defender had LGP, the contact is illegal. And if it is enough to allow a shot that had no chance before the contact, it's a foul. Doesn't matter whether the defender is moved 2 feet or 2 inches.

In the original situation, it sounds like Tweet got it just about right. First time, no real advantage gained, contact slight. Second time, more contact, clear advantage, foul. If the coach can't see the different he needs to ask his assistant to explain it to him.

I agree. The rule book states that if contact is made by the offense and the defense is in proper position and the offense gains an advantage, then it's an offensive foul. However, basketball is a contact sport. If you called a fould everytime one player put his/her hands on or bumped another player, then there would be no game. If would be a free throw game.

I understand exactly what you are saying. And agree with it. However, I feel that a ref. must use his/her own judgement as to how much contact is too much.

No one is talking about calling every bump and brush. I think the tendency is to let too much go, rather than not enough. And I think it varies a lot by level, and style of play. The girls' game is so horizontal that there is much more contact, but that also means that at the highest level, they're much more used to playing through it. So it ends up looking like a scrum sometimes. But at the middle levels of play, I usually end up calling more than "average" because the players haven't learned to play through. Girls' JV is about the toughest. because the girls haven't learned to defend cleanly, and they haven't learned how to deal with the defense, so there are lots of fouls, and lots of shots. Many of the "bumps" and "brushes" appear slight, but they do confer an illegal advantage, and have to be called. Rarely is there a good girls JV game that doesn't end up with 45 or 50 fouls. Refs need to call those, or the girls won't learn and move up. Hmmm.... time to write another article, I guess.

I agree completely. You are exactly right. I guess I tend not to call the game close enough. I tend to let minor things that are foul pass. Boys, however is much tough to officiate. Small brushes or bumps in girls basketball usually dont provide them with enough space to get a shot off if they couldnt do so to begin with. Boys have the ability to take that small bump that would never be blown as a foul and use it to their advantage, especillaly the good ones. That was more of what I was talking about.

By rule, that <b>is</b> a foul. Whether you choose to call it is a whole 'nother matter.

That's my point.

Yes it is. It is also a rule that a defender may not put his/her hands on the offensive player while he/she has the ball--hence a hand check. How often is that called? Maybe 40-50% of the time.

I am not trying to dispute what you are saying. I agree by the book, it is a foul. In the other post, we discussed bumps and brushes. Very different in boys and girls game. Boys are able to make slight bumps into a defender and use that to an advantage, most girls are not. My point, and I may not have one..lol, is that the depending of the severity of the bump or brush will depend on whether a foul is called.

Don't you use the principle of the contact being a foul <b>if</b> the player actually <b>gained</b> an advantage?

What other criteria could you use?

Not sure I understand your question. What I shoulda said is that officiating isnt as cut and dry as the rule book. Officiating is completly SUBJECTIVE. The hand check is an example as well as the slight bump. Both of these types of situations can drive a referee crazy. Severity dictates calls. Just because A1 is hand checking B1 80 feet from the basket doesnt mean that a whisle will sound. Think about how many games that you have sat in the stands and watched it happen over and over with it not being called.

Again you are right. I am not disputing the fact that the rule book states that it is a foul. I think that an officals judgement will determine whether a call should or shouldnt be made.

Why do I get the feeling Nate was a player turned official?

A player who took a lot of shots.;)

Sometimes that hand check is an attempt to steer the ball handler into a trap. IMO, if you get handchecks early in the game, they tend to disappear as the players realize that won't fly tonight. With all contact, you gotta decide advantage/disadvantage. That can be tough but I love nothing more that watching D spend his energy trying to handcheck A rather that defending with his feet. Now he's out of position and A is blowing by him for layups.

LOL..Is it that obvious? Subjectivity that all....

Very true. My point was that the hand check isnt called as often as we as officals see it or as often as it occurs. Same with small bumps and brushes.

My point is that <b>you</b> stated that someone is gaining an <b>advantage</b> by contact. If gaining an advantage by contact <b>isn't</b> a foul, then what is? How do you determine what a foul is or isn't if you're <b>not</b> using advantage/disadvantage as a criteria? If you are going strictly by the severity of the contact, I disagree completely with your philosophy.

Btw, maybe you can explain your "hand-checking" philosophy to me also. It seems to be somewhat different than the the FED instructions to officials in POE 2A issued in the 2003/04 rule book. In those instructions, the exact quote was "Regardless of where it takes place on the floor, when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it's a foul". It also says "when a player places both hands on a player, it's a foul". Severity of contact is not supposed to be a criteria in either of those cases, according to the rulesmakers. Maybe I've been interpreting those POE's wrong, but I always thought that the NFHS was also telling us to use advantage/disadvantage on the other handchecking examples mentioned also, as per the rest of that POE. Thoughts?

This has become an issue of someone being right and someone being wrong now. I didnt mean to try to prove anyone wrong or insult anyones intelligance when I posted. Just stated my opinon. This is what I will stop with. You are exactly right, as I said before. However, just like in football, where the rules states that a defender may not make contact beyond the initial 5yrd. Does it happen? Yes. Does it ever get flagged. Yes. Does it draw a flag 80% of the time....uhhh maybe. Hand check is the same way. You used the word continuous, in your explanation. Does that mean that if I use it only when I need to that its okay? A hand check is a hand check is a hand check. It's a foul every time it happens, according to the book. Do you call it everytime you see it? I hope you do and if you do then your a great official of the book.

Severity to me determines everything. IMO, in any brush or bump someone gains an advantage. That's the idea of the game. A post player wants to maintain contact with a defender in order to "feel him," to determine where he is going. This contact results in the offensive player gaining an advantage..yet he hasnt used his hand to hold. But he did use contact or bumping to gain that position. Is this a foul? By the book...yes. Called in most games. No.

No insults intended, but the situation you initially described is a foul. Backing into a player to get their weight on their heels so that you have space to operate has to be called. The offensive player has gained a clear advantage.

Handchecks are a different story. Does a quick touch give the player an advantage? You'd have to see it to judge it.

None taken. I am assuming since you think that is a foul, no matter of severity, then that a post player backing down a defender is a foul also? Contact is made, 99% percent of the time in the post with either the offence or defense gaining an advantage. In order to get position in the post contact must be made, right? And someone gains an advantage, right?

If an offensive player has the ball and he attempts to drive to the basket, in an effort to stop the drive the defender steps infront, legally, and the two bump together, is this a foul? If the contact, which doesnt necessarily have to be intentional, creates space and the offensive player shoots....Foul? I say not necessarily. I think it depends on: #1 the official #2 Severity #3Intention. If the offensive player leans into cause the contact then, foul.

nate
 

i do agree with you -- and that is why whenever a post player posts up and backs down a defender we ALWAYS see a player control foul. Guys stop being so literal -- sometimes I wonder if you guys actually officiate the same way you type.

I would like to see more hand checks being called when a player is driving to the basket -- or even lets start calling the 3 second call exactly on the 3 count -- maybe even T'ing up a coach as soon as he steps out of his box -- how about all the contact on rebounds -- because all that contact has to have a foul in it.

some rules of basketball dont have citations.

I'm not so sure that it's right/wrong -- but as an official, you do need to keep changing and improving. And this may be something that you'll need to work on this season. The danger isn't calling too much , it's calling too little. When you say that every bump and brush gives an advantage, I think you're using the words in ways that don't give us the same picture you're trying to portray. The contact, and the severity of the contact, aren't the point. The question is, was the advantage gained by illegal means? Was the disadvantage that the player gave to the opponent given illegally?

Suppose a dribbler is moving up the floor, and a defender sidles up along side and achieves and then maintains LGP. Now the dribbler may continue in her path, even if that means that she and the defender are actually touching, and the defender can continue in HER path even with slight contact. But, if the dribbler wants to turn, and can't because the defender is in the way, even slightly more contact by the dribbler in turning will be illegal, and thus a foul, if it moves the defender even one inch out of the path of keeping the dribbler from turning.

It won't always get called, because most refs will wait another breath or two to see if the dribbler keeps turning, or backs off. But if there's any displacement of the defender, there's a foul, and it should be called. It may not be severe at all, but if it gives an illegal advantage, then whistle it.

Re: nate
 

I'm not sure where you see this call ALWAYS being made, but when A1 backs B1 down on the post the only possible call IS a PC.

Re: nate
 

What your saying is what I have been trying to say for about 10 posts. Thanks. I agree, I think to many officials officiate by the book. It's impossible to do. If you call every foul that occurs then players wont play, they will shoot free throws all game. When I replied to the orginal post I stated that the rules say it's a foul, however I think its subjective. The answer I got was that someone gained an advantage from the contact; therefore, its a foul. Everyone gains an advantage from any type of contact. If we as refs are going to call the game by the book then we leave no room for subjectivity. So as Deecee states, as soon as the coach steps out of the box "T" him up. Or jockeying for positon under the glass should be a double foul. Maybe I am completely wrong.

Re: Re: nate
 

Hey Nate, here's where you are wrong - just because an official disagrees with you does not make them a rules book official.

Here's where else you are wrong - if the players do not or can not adjust to how the game is being called then there is nothing at all wrong with shooting free throws all game. If you aint ready to make the calls that need to be made then maybe you aint ready to referee the game.

Re: Re: nate
 

I give up, guys.

Neither of you understand what I've been trying to explain.

Call what you want. Sorry I wasted your time. I'm sorry that I wasted mine too.

see on here you get
 

most everyone wants to be -- and maybe has to be -- right so they say things that they are 100% right on and is supported in the rules book -- everything else, even if thats how they ref, they wont mention because subjectivity is not part of the rulebook but unfortunatly its part of the game.

Re: Re: Re: nate
 

First off I didnt say that just because anyone disagrees they are a rulebook referee. Secondly, you say players must adjust to the calls, this means there has to be SUBJECTIVITY. This means that there is not consistancy to calling a game. My statement was that some refs. are rulebook refs and this is why some players struggle. You have Rulebookers and others. Those who call it straight by the book and those who take into conderation outside factors.

Also, I dont,and I am not sure about the site, appreciate you telling me what I am ready for. If you would read the entire post, I said from the outset that it is a foul. However, I choose to see a little more in the situation than the words on the page. Taking shots at posters is very low. Just dont reply to what I have to say if you cant give advice. I'd rather not hear your attitude. Thanks

Re: see on here you get
 

And, never having met any of us, you know that is true....how?

Re: see on here you get
 

Subjectivity is not part of reffing. Judgment is.

So you assign which varsity league? You are the interpreter for which college division?

This has nothing to do with "having to be right." It has to do with refs working to be consistent across the country on how they call things. You say that it's subjective. It's not. It's trying to get together with other refs and find some middle ground about how to call contact. Most refs are in this middled ground that Dan and Jurassic are describing. You aren't there. That's fine. But don't expect to move the parade onto the sidewalk because that's where you'd rather march. If you want to ref the way others do, listen to what they say and try to follow that. If you just want it your way, then go ahead. But don't expect everyone to fall into line behind you!

Re: Re: see on here you get
 

The point I was trying to make about SUBJECTIVITY is that what you consider a foul, I may not. And vice-versa. I may view that bump and just hard basketball. You may see it as the offense trying to get an advantage. Everything that happens on the floor is subjective to the individual official.

Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

No one has taken a shot at you. We gave you advice, and you disagreed with that. We pointed out why we gave the advice you did. You started talking about "rulebookers". We again disagreed with your interp of a sitch, and you think we're shooting at you?

This doesn't have to be a flame war, but you need to find a way to disagree without it getting into an insult fest. We can disagree about judgement without calling each other "rulebookers" and so on.

Some of us disagree with you. It happens. Why is that a problem?

Re: Re: see on here you get
 

Not at all what I am trying to do. Just trying to come to a pulic formum and state my opinion. I am looking for no one to jump on my side.

On to subjectiviy...you say there is none. Well when was the last time you watched a game and disagreed with a call that was made? If you did disagree, well thats subjectivity. What you call a walk, I may have seen as a pivot foot not moving. What you may have called over the back, because of your position, I may have seen no contact form mine. Most calls are subject to who seen what, what angle they had.

Re: Re: Re: see on here you get
 

Being supported by the rule book is a good thing, Nate, not a bad thing. When a ref calls a foul, if that call isn't supported by the rule book, that ref won't be on the floor many more times. The rule book is there to define what's legal and what's not, and the ref is there to see that those boundaries are enforced.

Again, subjectivity isn't part of the equation. Judgement is. Refs use judgment to determine when the rules are broken. Their judgment needs to be informed by the rules as written, and by the interpretations that their peers put onto the rules. There are more categories of refs than rulebookers and others. There are "otheres" that "let 'em play" and others that "keep it tight". THere are those that do more talking at the beginning of the game, and those that talk less.

There are lots of styles and lots of personalituesm ut each must submit to the trends in their locale and in their association or there would be chaos. When we talk about how we interpret the rules of contact, we aren't just trying to puff ourselves up for our own aggrandizement. YOu asked about a situation, and we answered our of our experience, interpretations and observations of countless games and many, many refs. You are free to reject all that. But don't throw it in our faces. YOu asked after all!

Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

I'm not giving you advice Nate, I'm giving you my opinion. And I really don't care too much if you appreciate it or not, to tell you the truth.

If your concern is whether players struggle or not with the way a particular game is being called then you are not ready to referee. If the game needs a lot of fouls called then you better be able to make them. And to hell with the players - either they adjust or they continue to hear lots of whistles.

As I said, not advice to you at all. Just my opinion.

Sigh....

I don't know why, but I just wanna clarify a few things.

Nate, you stated your philosophy. In your own words-- "Boys are able to make slight bumps into defenders and use that to an <b>advantage</b>". You also stated "Severity dictates calls" and "My point is depending on the severity of the bump or brush will depend on whether a foul is called.

I disagree <b>completely</b> with <b>your</b> philosophy.

My philosophy is is that severity of contact has absolutely <b>NOTHING</b> to do with whether a foul should or should not be called. Whether one player gains an illegal advantage by that contact is the criteria that should be used.

Iow, look for advantage/disadvantage on fouls, <b>NOT</b> how hard the contact was or wasn't.

If a shooter can make enough room for themself to get a shot off by using a slight nudge, then the shooter gained an illegal advantage with that very slight contact, and a PC foul shoulda been called on him/her.

As I said, you do what you wanna do though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

LOL...I agree totally. First off, I called no one person a rule booker. I said that I feel that some officials do not see the situation, they only see the citation. I dont know anyone personlly or their style; therefore, I would never say anything like that. Dan however did take a shot at me. He told me that if I werent ready to make the calls...of course that HE feels I should make...that maybe I shouldnt officiate. That is a shot.

We can agree to disagree. You make it sound as though you offered advice and I disagreed. I agreed. I also stated that there is more that just words in a rule book to be considered.

Re: Re: Re: see on here you get
 

No it's not subjectivity. It's judgment and perspective. On a topic like travelling, either the pivot foot moved or it didn't. That has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's an absolute. If the foot moved, there's a travel. If the food didn't, there isnt'. Period.

Judgment only comes into play in determining illegal advantage and disadvantage. A hard foul has to be called by the book regardlesso f A/D. That's not a matter of judgment.

Judgment is only an issue on the slight fouls. the borderline hand-checks. The ref must determine whether an advantage was gained illegally, or a disadvantage conferred illegally. THIS IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!! It's the ref learning from her experience, listening, observing, questioning, and practicing how to make the best judgment.

If you haven't been experienceing, listening, observing, questrionsing and practicing for as many years as Dan, and Jurassic, then you really should do more listening and more observing and less arguing, and less self-defending. REpeating yourself over and over isn't a good way to get better.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

Thanks for your opinion, but again you act as though you know me. You act as though you know if I should be allowed to officate. Again, you tell me that I am not ready to do something if its not what might DAN would do.

Your advice is taken. I APPRECIATE IT. I think highy of advice. However, you telling me what I can and cannot or should and should not do is outta line. I'm sure it violate this sites COC.

Re: Re: Re: Re: see on here you get
 

If I remember correctly, we were talking about slight fouls, not hard obvious fouls. You call it judgement-- I call it subjectivity...Here's the dictionary definition...JUDGEMENT based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts.

I am not arguing ....just stating my opinion like you, defending it just like you. If you can convice me that I am wrong then, I'll see it different.

Re: Re: Re: see on here you get
 

This is funny...and gives a little too much away about Nate.

SHUT UP
 

we can all agree that we disagree and that judjement or subjectivity is part of the game and differs from official to official -- the only thing i can take from this argument is 2 tylenol and a nap...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

Sorry Nate, you're just plain wrong again.

I never told you what calls to make.

I don't care what calls you make.

You can no-call absolutely everything as far as I'm concerned. Avoid those messy free throws, let the players decide the game, collect your money & go home early.

Unless you're on the floor with me.

Not much chance of that happening, I expect.

Good call REF!!

Re: SHUT UP
 

The fact that you and Nate seem to think severity has everything to do with whether a foul should be called is something you both need to really look at and fix about your game. Unless you are willing to learn from more experienced officials, you will not get very far in this profession.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

Here is exactly what you said....please check it if you cant remember::::

"Here's where else you are wrong - if the players do not or can not adjust to how the game is being called then there is nothing at all wrong with shooting free throws all game. If you aint ready to make the calls that need to be made then maybe you aint ready to referee the game."

Now that being said, you still sit there saying you didnt take a shot at me personally. You are telling me that if I a cant make the calls then I dont need to call the game. This is not for KING DAN to decide. You should refrain from comments like that. It wrong, not matter who you think you are or how right you think you are. I think my opinion is right, but you dont see me making rude, crude statements like this. I am sure the forum Moderators would agree. No reason for it, its uncalled for.

Re: Re: see on here you get
 

WONDERFUL! I couldn't have said it better! Judgment and Consistency. Unless you are consistently bad... but that is a whole nother topic for discussion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

You need to work on developing a thicker skin.

No wonder you don't call a lot of fouls.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nate
 

Nate, quit yer crying. He used the word "maybe" in there. Actually what Dan said is right on the money. If you can't make the calls that need to be made, you shouldn't be doing this. What's wrong with that statement? If you can't look inside yourself and realize what you can do to improve your game, you seriously should reconsider doing it.

Re: SHUT UP
 

Shut up?

And...... when did you become the moderator here?

You obviously have either missed the points that people were trying to make or you think that those points should be completely ignored. That's fine. That's <b>your</b> opinion and you're entitled to it. Please don't compound that however by trying to dictate what any else should or should not do. That's none of your business. We are entitled to our opinions too.

God, please note for the record how polite I'm being today.

Re: Re: SHUT UP
 

God isn't paying attention today, he's too busy figuring out how to move that rock out of his apartment.

Re: Re: SHUT UP
 

I noticed it right from the word go this morning!!!!!

Re: Re: Re: SHUT UP
 

Hmmm...I noticed it right from the word Cox.

Re: Re: Re: SHUT UP
 

Or how big to make the woods for that bear.....

Well, thats for your advice. Most of you that I have encountered on this site offer good objective responses. However, I have a differing opinion on this issue and dont think that my opionion should subject me to criticism that I am receiving. Thanks again for your help, I wont be back.

Well, thats for your advice. Most of you that I have encountered on this site offer good objective responses. However, I have a differing opinion on this issue and dont think that my opionion should subject me to criticism that I am receiving. Thanks again for your help, I wont be back to bother again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: see on here you get
 

Your definition is of subjectivity, I think. Is that right?

You're saying that you think of subjectivity as judgment?

So why not call it judgment, which is what 99.9% of referees call it.

The problem I have with your statement, though is that you're saying you think judgment should be based on "impressions, feelings and opinions rather than external facts." I'm saying that judgment in refereeing is based on a very different set of ideas, those being, experience, learning, observation and training.

Here's the dictionary definition of judgment:

judg·ment v
1. The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

n
1. The mental ability to perceive and distinguish relationships; discernment: Fatigue may affect a pilot's judgment of distances.
2. The capacity to form an opinion by distinguishing and evaluating: His judgment of fine music is impeccable.
3. The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense: She showed good judgment in saving her money. See Synonyms at reason.
3. An opinion or estimate formed after consideration or deliberation, especially a formal or authoritative decision: awaited the judgment of the umpire.

Refs shouldn't base their judgment on opinions, feelings and impressions. That's why there's no subjectivity. Their judgment should be based on "consideration, deliberation, distinguishing relationships, discernment, evaluating, assessing, authoritative decision." Do you see the difference?

Nate1224hoops

Well, thats for your advice. Most of you that I have encountered on this site offer good objective responses. However, I have a differing opinion on this issue and dont think that my opionion should subject me to criticism that I am receiving. Thanks again for your help, I wont be back to bother again.

Too bad, you could be a great ref someday, if you get some training and a good mentor. Working strictly from your own opinions, however, won't get you very far.

[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 27th, 2005 at 04:17 PM]

God isn't paying attention today, he's too busy figuring out how to move that rock out of his apartment.
[/B][/QUOTE]I get it, I get it......

I remember that from Sunday School. It's the Easter story, right?

Jesus was crucified......and they placed his body into a cave with a giant, immense rock in front of it...... and 2 days later, the giant, immense rock was pushed aside.....and Jesus came out.....and if he then sees his shadow, we get 6 more weeks of winter.

Right?

I get it, I get it......

I remember that from Sunday School. It's the Easter story, right?

Jesus was crucified......and they placed his body into a cave with a giant, immense rock in front of it...... and 2 days later, the giant, immense rock was pushed aside.....and Jesus came out.....and if he then sees his shadow, we get 6 more weeks of winter.

Right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Obviously, that rock wasn't so big that GOd couldn't move it!

60 Minutes had Jordan on with Ed Bradley last Sunday nite. Jordan was demonstrating how to handcheck an offensive player and steer him in a desired direction.

All I ref is Youth Games down at the local YMCA.

I thought,

"Jeeez...every Coach is going to be watching this and teaching their kids to handcheck like Jordan this year."

It is amazing how much of an effect TV/the NBA has on the general understanding of the Rules. The craziest years I ever reffed were when Rodman played with the Bad Boys in Detroit. The kids would take two hands and push a rebounder out of position and look at me in disbelief when I blew the whistle. The NBA let Rodman get away with outright murder.

I for one....call cheezy handcheck fouls in the first quarter to set the tone of the game. I find if you don't, the kids escalate it until you have wrestling later.

Question to all...
 

Question then to all involved in this discussion.....

A1 is driving to the basket in the first quarter, starting at the top of the key. B1 is guarding. A1 crosses over. gets head and shoulders by B1, and continues to drive straight to the rim. B1 puts a had on the hip of A1, slightly displacing A1, but A1 continues forward and scores. Do you:

a) stop the drive to call the hand check?
b) call the hand check, count the basket and send A1 to the line for one throw?
c) No call and keep playing?

What is your answer if said play happens in the fourth quarter?

Re: Question to all...
 

I would say that if you call it by the book, then A...However I would say C) because some players are strong enough to discard the handcheck and finish without it affecting them. However, other players may be delayed by the hand check and force your hand into calling the foul immediately.

Re: Question to all...
 

Situations described like this are only meant to create controversy. It's impossible to say without question how you'd call this play without actually seeing it happen. And 5 different people that saw it from 5 different angles all might see it differently. Chances are, if the dribbler got past the defender and had a clear lane to the basket, I'd pass on the contact because there was no disavantage to the dribbler. It just depends on so many factors.

Re: Question to all...
 

This has nothing to do with what JCrow is talking about and is not worth discussing.

btw nate, I thought you weren't coming back.

I agree with Smitty. The question posed by SeanFitzRef is impossible to answer in a real life context without seeing the play and the level of players involved. As for this thread, Nate, I think we'd all agree that reasonable people presented with the same set of facts could come to different yet reasonable conclusions. That is judgment. Two officials may see the same play and one may call a foul while the other may pass. I don't think anyone here would dispute that. The problem I think people are having, and the way I read your posts, is that you appear to be presenting your scenarios from a "player's" perspective. The world of playing and the world of officiating are two very different things. For instance, almost every post player believes they can back a defender down in order to get to the basket. However, what the official is looking for is the illegal displacement of that defensive player. If that happens we are going the other way. A classic example is the post player using his upper back and shoulders into a defender to create space. That is a foul but when it's called, the post player almost always has this look of shock on his face. Similarly, defensive post players using forearms and hands and knees to keep an offensive post player at bay. Again, from an official's standpoint, that is a foul. Can two players jockey for position? Certainly as long as neither one puts the other at a disadvantage from an official's perspective. If someone gets the advantageous position legally (i.e. not using the swim stroke, etc), play on. Unlike other sports, strength doesn't entitle one to do as he pleases on the basketball court. As a former player, it took me a long time to get used to calling the game from an official's perspective rather than a player's perspective. While being a player may give you a feel for the game, which is great, you can't call the game as if you were playing in it. Once you understand that, I think you'll find the game a lot easier to call and you'll see where others here are coming from. Never stop learning.

Re: Question to all...
 

You left out a crucial element, and A and B cannot be an either or option unless the illegal contact continued from dribble through shot.

If A1 is still dribbling it can not be a shooting foul, if A1 has gathered the whistle does not stop the shot attempt because of continuous motion.

By rule 4-27-3, you may have a) or c), or b) or c), but not a) b) or c).;)

Re: Re: Question to all...
 

Decided that I would over look those who had an agenda in replying, hence YOU.

I agree with what you are saying and appreciate the advice. I feel like I do officaite the game the way I would want it called if I were playing, maybe I should reconsider.

All I was trying to say in this nice 5 page long post is that the situation that was described in the very beigining is subjective....meaning just what you said about the hypothetical situation above,and that is that without seeing the play, and actually who initiated the contact, you can't just say PC foul. Just like the situation described above. If you officiate strictly by the book. Then you would have to wistle the play dead and call the hand check. In his example he say that the defender slightly displaces the offensive player. Hence, FOUL. That was the same example I used. What is the severity of the bump or brush. Some of you say severity cannot be factored in, but some of the same people say that they would factor it in on the Hypo. situation with the hand check.

Several people seem to have a problem with me using the word Subjective. I can use the word judgment if you want. However, they are synonyms. Here is the definition of SUBJECTIVE: judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings. That came from dictionary.com.

I think that this discussion is very relavant. As long as we stick to trying to give examples for our arguments and not lambasting people for their opinions then these types of discussions can be beneficial. Thank for your advice.

You still just don't get it. Severity has absolutely nothing to do with why I'd call something a foul or not. It's all based on advantage/disadvantage. You're choosing to twist people's words to make an argument that is just plain wrong.

I am a new official so maybe my choice of words isnt correct. I use the word severity. I should use advantage/disadvantage. But does not the severity of a bump or push or hand check determine whether a player gained an advantage or disadvantage??? So wouldnt it be determining the same thing???

[Edited by Nate1224hoops on Oct 28th, 2005 at 10:15 AM]

Not necessarily. That little brush of the hand on the hip could have done nothing to change A1's direction or momentum in his drive toward the hoop. But perhaps A1 had both feet off the floor at that moment and that little brush of the hand on the hip was enough to get him slightly off balance and he loses his footing when he comes back to the floor. Same "severity" of contact, different result based on advantage/disadvantage. Same can be said for a hard slap on the arm of a player dribbling toward the basket where B1 is the only player between A1 and the basket. The slap doesn't cause A1 to lose any momentum and he's now past B1 and dribbles in for an easy lay-up, which you probably called "no basket" because you penalized the slap that caused no disadvantage to A1. In fact, you now cause A a disadvantage because you wiped off 2 points for them. Way to go, ref.

See what I mean?

I do see what you mean. And it makes perfect sense. But what your saying is that the call will be subjective, subjective to whats going on when the action in question occurs right?(ie.. the hand check on drive that doesnt affect dribbler or the check when coming to the floor does cause player to loose balance.)

Thanks for your help. I see what your are saying. You use examples that are very clearifing rather than tell me that I am wrong and dont need to officiate.

I think that you are saying exactly what I said earlier and that is that the bump or brush that occurs is not always going to draw a whistle. It will depend on what the circumstance were when the action took place, as you described above. This is where it is subjective to each individual official. Judgement as some say, or subjectivity are a part of the game. If it were not then there would never be controversy in sports concerning officaiting. Look at this years Playoffs...ton of controversy.

You may be right in that we all agree, it's just our semantics that are different. I would suggest that you really try and use the same terms to describe yourself as everytone else does. You may really think that the terms "subjective" and "severity" make sense for you, but clearly the vast majority of people here use other terms, consistently. In order to communicate successfully, you have to speak the vocabulary of the people you're communicating with.

AGREED...Thanks for your help.

You're welcome. One other thing. Everyone here started out as a new official once and fought through the same issues as you do. It took me years to understand the concept of advantage/disadvantage. Back in the day I was starting out, I didn't have the internet to get great advice like this site offers. All I had was the book and the other refs in my association, who sometimes gave me conflicting information. I had to figure it all out on my own. It took years. You now have all these great tools to help you become better faster. This site is outstanding for clarifying those details that are fuzzy in the book. You still may find that even the most experienced guys disagree, but you end up with so much more information to come to your own conclusions.

I think it's safe to say that most basketball officials were basketball players before we started to officiate the game. I never realized how little I knew about the rules until I started reffing. It's great that you have the mindset of a player, but you have to look at situations from a different perspective now. It sounds like you have a grasp of advantage/disadvantage. Just be open to constructive criticism and don't take things so personally here. If everyone left this site because someone else pissed them off, there would be no one left. The pissing contests are half the fun...

Thanks again for your help. The only thing I have to say about the "pissing contests," is this: it's fun trying to prove your point, no doubt about it. But doing it in the correct way is FUN. Degrading someone for not sharing your belief...especially without trying to explain yourself ..is just wrong. Telling someone they may not be cut out for a certain job just b/c they dont see things the way you do, isnt right. Maybe I shoulda seen the light 12 posts ago, but I didn't and what some people need to realize is that they dont always explain things in a way in which others understand. Sometimes it takes several attempts. AGREE??

I'm not sure I agree. In a forum like this you deal with all kinds of people from all different backgrounds. I don't think anyone was trying to insult you to the degree you took it. In fact, at the time I agreed that maybe you were biting off more than you could chew. You have to let that stuff roll off your back. Seriously Nate, if you can't handle a question of your integrity from complete strangers on an internet site, how will you do under the fire of a loudmouthed coach at the varsity level? Filter out the nonsense and only worry about the stuff that is important. Keep in mind that for all the things you accused others of, you were being very argumentative yourself. Officiating is not a job for the timid. You have to have a very thick skin and a very long fuse. Work on these aspects of your personality as well. I was the same as you once - I used to always think the experienced guys were picking on me. It wasn't until much later that I realized they were only trying to help me.

[Edited by Smitty on Oct 28th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

Understood. I believe that I do have thick skin. It just shocked me for a fellow official, who has been in my shoes to come across that way. Just took me by suprise. I thought we were here to help, not cast judgement upon.

Re: Re: Question to all...
 

Nah, Smitty, I was just trying to spark some conversation in a positive light, and let Nate see that we can use this for positive discussion. No controversy intended. That situation was presented to me in case-book form by one of my mentors, trying to teach me how to use my JUDGEMENT when making a split second decision. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion.

His point to me was that 'ultimately teams want to score points'. He mentioned that the contact couldn't have been severe enough if A1 drove past for a layup, so hold the whistle and give a verbal warning to "watch the hands".