You make the call. Over and back - or not?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I think it *should* be a violation, but as we discussed on McGriff's, I think the rules can be used to show it isn't.

Bob and I have discussed this play in the past. The difficulty arises from deciding whether there is a loss of team control like there is on a try or tap. Is it a try or tap since it hit the backboard? A player can throw the ball of the backboard and begin a new dribble. He can attempt a shot, miss everything and go get it. Those two examples would tend to make one think that a ball that hits A's backboard is considered a shot. The NF even clarified theat a pass from behind the arc is considered a shot if it goes in.

As I said, I think it's a violation but if I'm on the floor, I'll probably tell B's coach that I thought it was a shot.

[BigDave]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Because if you just think they ran the play a couple of time and you call this a BC violation, you will find yourself in an arguement. Because the coach will claim it was a shot.

Who cares what the coach claims...

Our role in the game is to determine if the rules are being adhered to. We see a play and we react to it. There has been a lot of discussion about what the coach will think. It is not my philosophy to make calls to please the coaches. If the coach doesn't like the call, he is welcomed to ask me about it, but he's not going to sway my judgement.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by BigDave


Who cares what the coach claims?

1- Officials who are hired based on whether coaches want them working their games or not.

2- Officials who have to book their own schedule with athletic directors and coaches.

3- Booking supervisors who ears are constantly getting bent by coaches who don't understand the rules.

4- Officials who work for booking supervisors who are constantly getting the ears bent about their officiating, be those remarks justified or not.

It's pretty easy and arrogant to say, "Who cares what the coach claims?" But the fact is that they are part of the game and they do affect the game and the officials. You can't make the call based on what the coach thinks but you can't just dismiss Rut's point. When we make a call, we need to make sure it's the proper call. When there's a question about a play, such as this one, sometimes it's better to not go by the letter of the rule, especially when the rule isn't clear.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Bob and I have discussed this play in the past. The difficulty arises from deciding whether there is a loss of team control like there is on a try or tap. Is it a try or tap since it hit the backboard? A player can throw the ball of the backboard and begin a new dribble. He can attempt a shot, miss everything and go get it. Those two examples would tend to make one think that a ball that hits A's backboard is considered a shot. The NF even clarified theat a pass from behind the arc is considered a shot if it goes in.

As I said, I think it's a violation but if I'm on the floor, I'll probably tell B's coach that I thought it was a shot.

I fall on the side of believing that it is not a shot/try. All the rule says is that the backboard is considered to be part of the floor and that it is not a dribble if it is off the player's own backboard. It does not go so far as saying it is a try. I see is as an exception to the player control and dribble rules rather than as being a try. I do belive it is ambiguous however in its current form. Perhaps they do mean for it to be a try, but in that case you would need to consider the player in the act of shooting if fouled while throwing it off the board...not the intent in my opinion.

As far as the ball going in the basket from behind the line, I don't believe they are saying it is a try, I believe it is simply to be counted as 3...not unlike a team putting the ball in the other team's basket. It's not a try, but it still counts as if it were one if it goes in while live. Any fouls that occur during such action would not be shooting fouls.

[dhodges007]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

1- Officials who are hired based on whether coaches want them working their games or not.

2- Officials who have to book their own schedule with athletic directors and coaches.

3- Booking supervisors who ears are constantly getting bent by coaches who don't understand the rules.

4- Officials who work for booking supervisors who are constantly getting the ears bent about their officiating, be those remarks justified or not.

It's pretty easy and arrogant to say, "Who cares what the coach claims?" But the fact is that they are part of the game and they do affect the game and the officials. You can't make the call based on what the coach thinks but you can't just dismiss Rut's point. When we make a call, we need to make sure it's the proper call. When there's a question about a play, such as this one, sometimes it's better to not go by the letter of the rule, especially when the rule isn't clear.

It is true that you have to consider the fact that coaches are part of the game and will have serious impact on what you work or don't work. However, I don't believe that one call is going to upset a coach to that point. It may be the straw that breaks the "coach's" back. I think that it will be the way that you handle the coach explaining why you made the call that will have more bearing that one whistle in the game.

Just my two cents...

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by dhodges007

...I think that it will be the way that you handle the coach explaining why you made the call that will have more bearing that one whistle in the game.

And that's true of any call that you make that could be misunderstood. The official who ignores a coach is likely the one who will end up sticking him before the game is over.

[Mark Padgett]

I must say that when I posted this, I didn't think it was going to turn into a discussion on the amount of attention an official should pay to what coaches think, but rather a discussion of the play itself.

In the case I described, there is no doubt the ball hit the board on a pass, not a try. The play is identical to one tried previously on more than one occasion in the game. My advice is to make the correct call according to the rule, which is over and back, then tell any complaining coach that you will explain it at the next break. Period.

BTW - this was a set play in the NBA years ago when Jack Ramsey was coaching the Blazers. He ran it for Calvin Natt. After trying it for a few games and having it work only about 20% of the time, they abandoned it. Frankly, I think it could work at that level with the proper personnel, although if a forward could get inside position that easily, and a guard can make that pass that easily, maybe you're better off with an alley-oop.

[BigDave]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

1- Officials who are hired based on whether coaches want them working their games or not.

2- Officials who have to book their own schedule with athletic directors and coaches.

3- Booking supervisors who ears are constantly getting bent by coaches who don't understand the rules.

4- Officials who work for booking supervisors who are constantly getting the ears bent about their officiating, be those remarks justified or not.

It's pretty easy and arrogant to say, "Who cares what the coach claims?" But the fact is that they are part of the game and they do affect the game and the officials. You can't make the call based on what the coach thinks but you can't just dismiss Rut's point. When we make a call, we need to make sure it's the proper call. When there's a question about a play, such as this one, sometimes it's better to not go by the letter of the rule, especially when the rule isn't clear.

The "who cares" comment I made referred to that one play. When I posted that, I knew someone would jump on it and give me an earful about listening to coaches. Well, you are preaching to the choir. I know very well the importance of the coaches being involved in the game.