Just read.....

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JTRICE
Back to Chris Weber and that infamous time out in the championship game.......Do most of you remember the referee NOT calling a travel on Chris Weber as he turned to dribble up the court on that famous last play?????

As JimCrow is saying..........that was a GREAT no call.......it would have been awful (even more awful than him calling a TO the team did not have) if the game would have been decided on a travel in the back court with noone even guarding him...........

Someone once said, and I have found it to be true, "No fans will remember anything that was called out here tonight EXCEPT what was called in the last 2 minutes of the game. Make sure you get the call right in the last 2 minutes and make sure you don't call anything stupid in the last 2 minutes."

I say this to myself toward the end of each close game I officiate.

I have to disagree with you, John. First, he was being guarded. Second, the official turned his head and missed the travel. He didn't no call it. Wanna see the tape?

[BktBallRef]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by just another ref

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Somebody on the other team threw the ball to Worthy in the last minute of a late round tournament game when he was at North Carolina. The ref's should have invoked the bad peripheral vision/he didn't mean to do that rule.

Yes, that did happen, IN 1982!

Fred Brown threw the ball away with less than 10 seconds to play in the Georgetown championship game. It had nothing to do with the Chris Webber play IN 1993.

[just another ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Originally posted by just another ref

Yes, that did happen, IN 1982!

Fred Brown threw the ball away with less than 10 seconds to play in the Georgetown championship game. It had nothing to do with the Chris Webber play IN 1993.

Are you backing me up or scolding me? I agree the Worthy play and the Webber play are not related. Just couldn't think of another notable Worthy play.

[Rich]

I wouldn't have let you get away with not shooting the technical throws. You would've gotten T'd up for not giving me a shooter, though. Of course, I haven't worked rec ball in years, so I'm thinking about the HS varsity level here.

We constantly remind coaches how many timeouts are left, ESPECIALLY when a coach is out of timeouts. The coach is supposed to communicate with his players. If someone calls for a timeout, and is entitled to, we call it. Who knows, maybe the team wanted to buy a timeout with a T? Likely not, but it's not my job to be a mindreader.

That said, I like the football rule better -- you call one and you don't have one, we simply don't grant it. If we do, accidentally, we start the clock immediately upon recoginizing that the team didn't have one. At some levels, it's a delay of game penalty.

[BktBallRef]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by just another ref

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Are you backing me up or scolding me? I agree the Worthy play and the Webber play are not related. Just couldn't think of another notable Worthy play.

No, you're cool. Just pointing out for JCrow that Chris Webber's TO had nothing to do with James Worthy.

[HJ25]

Getting away from the TO plays...

I just think some people, in all aspects of the game, often tend to forget what it's all about. When you're playing the game, as much as you want to win, it's because it's a fun game (the very best!) to play. It's no longer fun when people's opinions of their role supersedes the purpose of the game - to have fun in the first place.

It's not all "the officials' game." It's not all the coaches' game either... basketball is played by the players. Of course, both the officials and the coaches are essential parts of the game, but a game of basketball consisting of two coaches standing in the box arguing about calls made by officials on players who aren't there wouldn't be much fun.

I am not an official, nor am I a coach; but, knowing a bit about basketball, I have a great deal of respect for both roles. I know coaches can get very frustrated, and I know officials take a lot of crap from fans, players, and coaches.

For the game of basketball to be fun, it has to be fair. That's the officials' job, and for the most part they do a good job. But it's no longer a good job when one thinks "Well, I made the right call according to the rulebook, directions, and interpretations. Too bad if it ruins the game."

Everyone in the world of basketball looks to constantly improve; and that is fine - in fact, it's essential. But your improvement, as an official, a coach, or a player, is all supposed to be conducive to a better game of basketball that's more fun for everybody. To call it "your game" exclusively is selfish and counterproductive to what I believe is the primary purpose of basketball specifically and sports in general.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by HJ25
But it's no longer a good job when one thinks "Well, I made the right call according to the rulebook, directions, and interpretations. Too bad if it ruins the game."

So you'd rather that an official made a call that was against the rules because it fits his or her definition of "fair?"

You might be playing a game with a basket and a ball, but you aren't playing basketball.

If you have specific rules that yuou think should be changed, I'm sure the rules committee(s) would be glad to hear from you.

[Forksref]

Originally posted by JCrow
If you take that T....why not cheat on a test, sue Market Basket for slipping on a grape, ot cheat on your spouse, etc.

You compare taking the T (which is in the rules) to cheating on a test?? You are going to fault the official for applying the rules?? Huh?

If you don't want the T, then change the rules.

I think you would rather have a game on the driveway with no refs. If so, then go for it.

[Forksref]

Originally posted by JTRICE
Back to Chris Weber and that infamous time out in the championship game.......Do most of you remember the referee NOT calling a travel on Chris Weber as he turned to dribble up the court on that famous last play?????

As JimCrow is saying..........that was a GREAT no call.......it would have been awful (even more awful than him calling a TO the team did not have) if the game would have been decided on a travel in the back court with noone even guarding him...........

Someone once said, and I have found it to be true, "No fans will remember anything that was called out here tonight EXCEPT what was called in the last 2 minutes of the game. Make sure you get the call right in the last 2 minutes and make sure you don't call anything stupid in the last 2 minutes."

I say this to myself toward the end of each close game I officiate.

I say it ALL game long. I am not going to call it differently in the 4th quarter than the rest of the game. The kids deserve consistency so they can adjust.

[JCrow]

I've been thinking about the comments:

1. I can find no record of James Worthy ever calling an illegal TO. I don't know where I got that one! My apologies to Mr. Worthy.

2. I may have been "show-boating" when I refused that T. It was a funny situation. The father Coaching the other Team probably didn't know the League Rules. It seemed like the sporting thing to do at the time. Would I do it again? In a Rec League maybe....in Varsity Competition, I understand the need to be more formal.

There have been many Posts concerning the difference between the "Spirt of the Rules" and the "Letter of the Rules". There are ones on "odd shirts", "dunking in warm-ups", etc. I tend to side more with the people who look at upholding the Spirit of Rules. Here's an example:

Years ago, I read book by Alan Dershowitz. He had a case where two Drug Dealers got into an altercation with a Supplier. Drug Dealer A shot the man in the chest twice with a .45. He then turned to Drug Dealer B and told him to shoot the man so that Drug Dealer B could never rat him out. Drug Dealer B complied and shot the Supplier twice with a 9mm. They were both arrested and charged with First Degree Murder. Dershowitz defended Drug Dealer B and got him an aquital. How? Dershowitz argued foresenically that the Supplier was already dead from Drug Dealer A's two fatal gunshots and as he was DEAD.....Drug Dealer B could NOT have murdered him.

To me, that seemed a terrible miscarriage of justice as I saw Drug Dealer A and B as equally guilty of First Degree Murder. But...it was definitely supported by the the Letter of the Law defining First Degree Murder.

Dershowitz has a brillent intellect. His books are filled with stories about bad people avoiding punishment because he can find a way to show that their deed didn't fall within the specific Letter of the Law. But....after reading them, you wonder how the guy sleeps at night? (He does love basketball so he can't be all bad.)

I tend to think that adhering to the Spirit of a Rule often serves to effect better Justice.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by JCrow
I've been thinking about the comments:

1. I can find no record of James Worthy ever calling an illegal TO. I don't know where I got that one! My apologies to Mr. Worthy.

2. I may have been "show-boating" when I refused that T. It was a funny situation. The father Coaching the other Team probably didn't know the League Rules. It seemed like the sporting thing to do at the time. Would I do it again? In a Rec League maybe....in Varsity Competition, I understand the need to be more formal.

There have been many Posts concerning the difference between the "Spirt of the Rules" and the "Letter of the Rules". There are ones on "odd shirts", "dunking in warm-ups", etc. I tend to side more with the people who look at upholding the Spirit of Rules. Here's an example:

Years ago, I read book by Alan Dershowitz. He had a case where two Drug Dealers got into an altercation with a Supplier. Drug Dealer A shot the man in the chest twice with a .45. He then turned to Drug Dealer B and told him to shoot the man so that Drug Dealer B could never rat him out. Drug Dealer B complied and shot the Supplier twice with a 9mm. They were both arrested and charged with First Degree Murder. Dershowitz defended Drug Dealer B and got him an aquital. How? Dershowitz argued foresenically that the Supplier was already dead from Drug Dealer A's two fatal gunshots and as he was DEAD.....Drug Dealer B could NOT have murdered him.

To me, that seemed a terrible miscarriage of justice as I saw Drug Dealer A and B as equally guilty of First Degree Murder. But...it was definitely supported by the the Letter of the Law defining First Degree Murder.

Dershowitz has a brillent intellect. His books are filled with stories about bad people avoiding punishment because he can find a way to show that their deed didn't fall within the specific Letter of the Law. But....after reading them, you wonder how the guy sleeps at night? (He does love basketball so he can't be all bad.)

I tend to think that adhering to the Spirit of a Rule often serves to effect better Justice.

Can you tell us how you are relating that to a game of basketball?

[Back In The Saddle]

Just a couple of thoughts about some recent comments:

Once they take the court, it is the official's game. That's not selfish, that's the way it has to be. A comptetitive contest, especially one as subjective as basketball, is only fun when both sides can depend on impartial judgements. The moment it appears that the decisions are being based on something other than the agreed upon rules, it begins to be less fun.

The problem with enforcing the spirit of the rules over the letter is that too often "the spirit of the rule" is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, there are some areas where we get widespread agreement. And there are cases where the team that would benefit agrees to set aside the letter. But for the most part, talk of the spirit of the rules is just a tactic to get one's way at the expense of the game.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by JCrow
Just about 100% (of) the time a Team loses....it's because the other Team had better kids.

...and, as a Coach, you sold that to the parents and school administrators? If so, I bet you could sell sand to a Nomad.
Of course, what makes "better kids"? Coaching, preparing, practicing, strategy, match-ups, and athleticism to name just a few.

"My feeling is that these Coaches are probably frauds and don't know the game well enough to be watching their players and trying to see where adjustments need to be made."

Well, according to your first quote, it doesn't matter what the coach is watching...as long as "Coach Fraud" has the better kids...his team will win "just about 100% of the time."

[HJ25]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just a couple of thoughts about some recent comments:

Once they take the court, it is the official's game. That's not selfish, that's the way it has to be. A comptetitive contest, especially one as subjective as basketball, is only fun when both sides can depend on impartial judgements. The moment it appears that the decisions are being based on something other than the agreed upon rules, it begins to be less fun.

How does that make it the officials' game? It just makes it a properly officiated players' game... if that's what "the officials' game" means, then I agree.

One point that has not been brought up is that basketball is a game of making split second decisions and quick physical and mental reactions. Its part of the game whether it is deciding who to pass to during a 3 on 1 fast break, or whether to call a timeout after your team secures a rebound during the last minute of a game. If you are not aware of the situation at hand (how many timeouts your team has) and call one, that warrants a penalty.