I'm posting this just to show that you never know when an obscure play will happen and you'd better be prepared for it.

Last Saturday, JV boys level - A1 has ball in frontcourt and team A is set up fairly high, so my partner (trail) is standing in backcourt by about 2 feet. The gym floor is smaller than standard, so this is the correct position. A1 attempts a pass to A2. A2 moves just as the pass is thrown and the ball hits my partner (who is still in backcourt). The ball caroms back into the frontcourt where it is grabbed by A1.

From the lead, I knew this was an over and back. My partner (a 12 year vet) didn't blow his whistle. I decided to let it go, since I thought maybe he saw a member of B touch the pass in frontcourt or something.

At the quarter, I asked him about it. After giving me his best Homer Simpson look for a moment, he admitted he blew it.

We both recited the fourth element of an over and back, which is that the team that was last to touch in frontcourt is the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt, not that the touch has to be in the backcourt.

Of course, neither one of us blew another call the entire weekend. :)

For those of you who are newbies, the first three elements of an over and back are:

1) there must be team control
2) the ball must have achieved frontcourt status
3) the team in team control must be last to touch the ball in frontcourt

And, of course, number four is listed above. If you have all four elements, you have an over and back. If you are missing even one of them, you don't. And yes - there is an exception on throwins.

I would like to add my two cents on this. This is exactly how I would have handled this situation. Even though your partner later admitted to kicking the call, you didn't come charging from the baseline and make a scene. I've worked with too many prima donnas who think that they are bigger than the game and their partners. Besides even though the lead saw this it's not his "area" to call. Something to be learned in this forum every day.

Off on a tangent...
 

but I'd like to add yet two <b>more</b> cents to this discussion, albeit if off-topic. Where is the proverbial line drawn on taking a (non) call out of your primary. I totally agree in this situation, and I've had a few times this year (my first) where I was off ball and even then knew my partner just kicked a (non) call. However, and like Suppref says, I didn't want to thunder across the court and show my partner up. Is there ever a time when it would be acceptable and/or appropriate to make an out-of-your-primary call on a partner('s) no call?

Re: Off on a tangent...
 

Dan, the further the call is out of my primary the surer
I have to be that it was missed and it would have to be
*very* obvious to everyone that the call needs to be made.
Not only that, I would need to have a very good reason to be
looking there to begin with.

Over the years, I've developed some guidelines I use for calling out of my area. The first thing I consider is the experience level of my partner and the type of league (summer, regular season, etc). Next would be the type of call.

If my partner is experienced, I probably won't call out of my area unless I see a kid get clobbered and also notice my partner was tying his shoe at the time.

I learned the hard way that most of the time you take a call away from you partner that was really his, he saw something that caused him to make the call (or non-call) the way he did. Plus - the more you call outside your area, it means the more you are looking outside you area and that's not your job.

Whenever I have a pregame, I always let my partner know I encourage and expect him to make an obvious call in my area if he is positive I blew it, but that I would expect it to be an "OHMYGOD". You know - the kind of foul where everyone in the gym goes "OHMYGOD".

BTW - speaking of areas, I did 4 games this past weekend with Juulie (rainmaker) and we only had one double whistle, and that was on a travel where the ball handler was moving from one area into the other. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Mark

"BTW - speaking of areas, I did 4 games this past weekend with Juulie (rainmaker) and we only had one double whistle, and that was on a travel where the ball handler was moving from one area into the other. That's the way it's supposed to be."


In the above, you are refering to games officiated using 2-person mechanics, not 3, correct?

jake

Mark -- Thanks for the compliment. Off-ball is something I've worked really hard on, and I appreciate you noticing. Incidentally, Slorey was quick to notice and compliment the same thing. I feel ten feet high.

On the subject of areas, and blown calls, I saw a real lulu in the WNBA game I was at this week. I have to say, that I thought the refs did a fantastic job. I didn't have any criticism at all, and they handled the player emotions really well, and the coaches. But there was a missed call that was one of Mark's OHMYGOSHs. In fact, the entire Coliseum gasped. The dribbler was in the center of the pack heading up court and the last offense player (I can't call her an "offender"!) was trying to hold off the defense. She set a good screen, and the fourth defender stepped around but the last defender didn't see the screen until it was too late and WOW! They both hit the deck! I saw the impact coming and glanced at both trail and center, but THEY WERE BOTH LOOKING DOWNCOURT toward the ball. I know the action -- it's very easy to ignore that last player or two behind you when the action is fast and furious. Unfortunately, the screen was a home team player so the reaction was huge -- and emotional. (I'm not going to put this onto McGriff's -- I don't want to hear what JF has to say!)

Here's the lesson: Even the most experienced, confident and capable refs do occasionally make mistakes -- even big ones. They did the right thing and shook it off and moved on. But I'm glad I wasn't at the film meeting the next day!!

If the defense didn't "run through" the pick, then this was a good no-call, at least under FED rules (yes, I know -- the WNBA rules might be different). 4-27-4.

Unless I'm reading your post wrong, Rainmaker, the refs didn't miss a call here. If you're screened outside your visual field and make contact with a player that does not have the ball, it is considered incidental contact. Even though it looks ugly, it's not a foul.

Of course I'm using Fed rules here not NBA or WNBA.

Could you possibly give us a rule reference for your post? I'm not sure I am following your line of thought...just because the screen is set outside a player's field of vision does not give that player the right to mow down the screener. This should have been a foul at the Fed and NCAA level...the WNBA may have some clause which says to ignore that contact so far behind the play, but the Fed sure doesn't...also, to Juulie and to Mark Padgett, I see you have "crossed the river" and are working games in Vancouver now...I look forward to meeting you one of these weekends...

dj

I agree - incidental, and proably at all levels of play. Here is NF reference as requested:

Rule 4 SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

Rule 10-6-3d
In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball.

Have to see the play, but if the defender does not see the screen and hits the screener hard, it is incidental. A lot of fans scream at incidental contact because it is so obvious tha something should be called. Not necessarily!

My rule reference is the same as Bob's, 4-27-4. I am going under the inference that the player did not see the screen and plowed the screener over. Of course, it works both ways. A couple of years ago, I saw a player seemingly as big as a house set a screen on a guard that didn't see it. He was laid out flat when he hit it. His mother, who was sitting on the sideline about four feet from the play, wanted to call something but it's incidental contact.

Rule 10-6-3d says that the contact should be ruled incidental provided that the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact...in the case mentioned, the defender didn't stop on contact, but mowed the screener down...so using the rationale posted above, A2 sets a screen for A1 who is dribbling in the frontcourt...B1, guarding A1, does not see the screen and runs through A2, knocking him/her to the floor. You will have a no-call on that play?

Yes, I have a no call on that play. Of course I'm not talking about a case where a player runs into a screener, feels resistance, lowers his shoulder and plows on through. I'm talking about the situation where the momentum of the player knocks the screener down.

It is not always possible to stop on contact. Remember, Mass times Energy equals momentum.

If the player is not intending to knock down the screener he did not see, it is incidental contact.

Rockyroad has a good point regarding attempt to stop. Although you may flatten screener, if you never attempt to stop even after knocking the screener down, that should be a foul. If there is no foul and the defender can continue, defense gained advantage by running through the screener. That's why I said you have to see it. If the contact is hard and bodies go both ways (so defender is stopped by force of contact), it is incidental contact in my book. That frequently happens when a player doesn't see a screen. It is quite possible that there may is no way for a player to attempt to stop immediately on contact if the player is moving fast. But if that player never hesitates after plowing the screener, it's a foul.

But the defense DID run through the pick. That's the point. Or are you saying that since the defense also fell, she didn't run through?

Barry and Hawk's Coach: I'm not sure what you would call the visual field of the defender. She was looking straight ahead, and the screener was right in front of her. The contact was torso to torso. And she didn't try to avoid contact. She may or may not have seen the screen, but the second-to-the-last defender went around the screen, so this last one should have had some clue that there was something or someone there.

And it was obvious to me that neither the trail nor the center saw the play. They were both looking well forward, with their backs to the situation. I'm not saying all this to be harsh or critical. But it WAS a mistake, and it gave me something to think about -- even when I'm that good (not if, but when!) I'll still be making the occasional big mistake. So I'd better learn how to handle it...

[Edited by rainmaker on May 19th, 2001 at 03:01 AM]

Juulie - sometimes what you may perceive as a mistake really is not. Remember last week when we called four offensive fouls on that post player? He kept putting his arm around the defender to hold him back when the defender would try to get around to front him?

After the game, I heard his coach complaining to a parent who came late that we called those fouls and he couldn't understand why his guy "never" had an offensive foul called on him before, and then he gets four in one game. Let's assume his behavior in other games was the same (I can't imagine he never held before) and it "never" got called. Whose mistake is that - ours or the refs he had in those games?

Actually, it's probably his coach trying to rationalize why they lost. :)

Besides your humor Mark, you use discretion wisely.
The best statement I have seen for officiating as far as working with your partner is:"See globally,call locally".
If all officials would do this the coaches wouldnt try to divide the officials. I am 100% in favor of discussing in private any call you might have a question about.

Remember we are all officials, we have are reasons for the calls or no-calls that we make.(No calls we elect to make are always perceived by others as mistakes). A lot of the threads that are on here the remark is "Well I would have to see exactly what happened, or I would assume this happened". In the comment about the collision on the screen. The officials probable felt the contact was incidental. Good screen.....contact made......Defender did not push through screen...No foul! Crowd reaction(Home team did not get call) REACTION!!! Now I did not see this. My question to rainmaker( I'm not picking on you)>

You saw the play......crash....then a split second goes by you look at the officials(now they are looking away from the play. Are we sure that they did not see it? And elected to make a no-call?

AK ref SE

When viewed alone, this is certainly a foul on the defender for running through the screen. However, when viewed in the context of the play, I can easily see a no-call. It sounds like the <em>real</em> play was well ahead of the contact. To call such a foul, especially at the pro level, would actually give an advantage to the fouler by negating the opportunity for a relatively easy fast break basket.

Cameron-
That is good philosophy! Seeing the whole play. That takes practice. When I started out calling basketball, I had quick whistles(did not see if the basket went or not) Did not let the game flow. A foul was a foul!

AK ref SE

To me, whether there was excessive contact or not on the
screen is not the point here. Juulie claims that neither
the C or T was looking at the play. If this is true then
they really messed up. (Frankly, since this would be
such a huge mistake I kinda tend to doubt that the T
actually missed the whole play. If it did happen that way
then I'm sure someone got reamed after the game.)

Just goes to prove we are not all Billy Packers' err.. I mean perfect.

Okay, Okay, I get the point. I'm not going to go on and defend my judgment here, especially at the expense of someone who can't defend himself. Although actually, I'd be glad if the T and C on this play were on this board, as I would like to hear what they would say. Of course it is possible that my analysis of this play is out of line, and that I didn't see something that made a big difference in this no-call.

In my own defense, though, I don't think I'm being like Billy Packer, who repeatedly demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the rules and of officiating principals. And I'm also not disagreeing only about philosophies. It really looked to me like a mistake, and I was looking with eyes that saw the whole picture, from my point of view. I mean, even if I agree that I shouldn't have asked this particular question, or should have asked it differently, I'm still not totally out to lunch!

At this point in the thread I gotta ask, how does one learn from watching others' work if one can't make judgments about right and wrong? Am I supposed to assume that the other ref that I'm watching is always right? I'm not saying this to be superior. There is no way I could have done as good a job as those guys on the floor that night. I'm not trying to keep them in their place or anything like that. I was trying to watch and learn and pick up something from them. Is it okay to discuss my perceptions in a smaller, more private venue, such as with Padgett before a game at the Hoop on Sunday? How am I supposed to work this stuff through?

[Edited by rainmaker on May 23rd, 2001 at 05:11 PM]

Rainmaker-
I am speaking for myself only. I hope that you did not think I was questioning your judgement or what you saw. It is like I said above. Unless we(people reading the thread) saw this play or any other situation in this forum that is discussed. It is hard to say what is right or wrong. I learn alot from you and other officials on this site. When I watch other officials at games, I look at their mechanics, where the are on the floor, and most important how they handle themselves during heated moments in a game. My though on judgement...... judgment is something that is unique to the individual, and with anything else practice, practice practice.
I apologize if you took my comments as an attack.

AK ref SE

Juulie - I have always found your questions to me to be intelligent and pertinent. Plus - you are always receptive to comments and try to learn from them. This is exactly how we referees improve. Don't stop. As you know, anything you want to ask me this weekend will be welcome. I got a lot of help when I was starting out and I feel it is my obligation to do the same for others.

BTW - I got my summer league schedule from Lav today in the mail and it doesn't look like we will be working any games together. I see you get a few with our friend, Jeff "The Tall Guy." Most of my games are at the main gym at Tigard so I will be air conditioned :)

Hey, no need to defend yourself, I didn't mean to shut you
up, make you doubt your own judgement or certainly not
stifle your great questions & posts. Certainly do watch
refs at the higher levels, if you see their mistakes then
great, it means you're thinking about your own game.
Continue to question what you see, no one is infallible. But I'm inclined to give the guys (gals) on the floor the
benefit of the doubt simply because they are not here to
defend themselves and what you described is a huge screw-up
on their part (well, at least the T's part). Anyways,
my apologies if I was out of line in my post.