OK, we're bored. Topic: Rules never called. Discuss

[tjones1]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Definitely NOT the least called foul. Perhaps the foul that doesn't get properly named very often.

I expect the least called infraction is hitting the ball with a fist. I've never heard of anyone ever calling it, never heard it brought up in meetings, never heard the rule even mentioned anywhere.

I would concurr Juulie. I called this violation this year. The coach didn't have a clue (of course, ) what was going on, so I had to do some explaining.

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by gostars


Texas has also come down very hard on the coaching box. We were told that if we didn't enforce the box we wouldn't be getting playoff assignments. They also said that if the chapter as a whole didn't enforce it the ENTIRE CHAPTER would not be getting regional playoff assignments. On top of all this they told us that if an official was chronically not enforcing the coaching box the ethics committee would get involved.

Some of our gyms don't have a box taped down or the box is taped in the middle of the bench. We have been instructed to ask the coach to tape the box in it's proper position. If he/she refuses we are to seat belt the home coach and allow the visiting coach the first three chairs.

Wow. In your opinion, is this coming in response to coach misbehavior that has gotten out of hand or is there a perception that enforcement of the coach's box has been lax regardless of coach behavior?

[tjones1]

Originally posted by bebanovich
I apologize in advance for coach terminology in describing my answers.

NFHS: Any sort of violation involving the coaching box. Please don't start calling it. Let's think of it like a nuclear missle - a great deterent to have in place with no need to launch. I promise to behave if I'm out of it or be sitting if I'm not behaving.
[Edited by bebanovich on Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:58 PM]

I saw a coaching box warning given this weekend during the State Semi-Final game.

[psycho_ref]

How about the all time fantasy of whacking the fans with a T. Oh what a dream, and a sure and delicious recipe for chaos.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by psycho_ref
How about the all time fantasy of whacking the fans with a T. Oh what a dream, and a sure and delicious recipe for chaos.

See Duke @ FSU March 1, 2006.

[gostars]

Originally posted by bebanovich

Wow. In your opinion, is this coming in response to coach misbehavior that has gotten out of hand or is there a perception that enforcement of the coach's box has been lax regardless of coach behavior?

Probably both. They have told us every year to enforce the box and all the season veterans have used the old "if he's coaching I don't care where he is". There were some coaches who really pushed the limit. I think their theory was if the coach was in the box he wouldn't get T'd up for being right in the officials face after a call (we had coaches that would be right down on the baseline).

I know that during the first month of the season six DISD coaches were ejected over the coaching box. The UIL gave each a FOUR GAME district suspension. I think most of the coaches got the message by the end of the year that they are supposed to stay in the box.

[drinkeii]

This thread raises several questions I have had since I started officiating 7 years ago. (and yes, I did read just about every post in the thread before I posted this)

1) Why have rules, if the officials are going to consistently choose not to administer them?

2) Why do officials take pride in the fact that they have "never" or "rarely" made calls, which by the rules, are required to be made? (3 seconds or technical fouls, for example)

I understand there is a certain amount of judgement required for the administration of the rules - but some rules are cut and dried, and when officials choose not to enforce them, because they a) don't like the rule, b) don't like the effect calling it is going to have on the coach, players, fans, game flow, etc, or c) just don't care (which I have worked with officials who have said this to me in response to why a call wasn't made on something i felt was obvious, but was in their primary, so I passed), it doesn't make sense to have those rules in place.

Just like a cop can choose not to give you a ticket for speeding, officials can choose not to administer a specific rule under a specific circumstance. However, in both cases, a rule/law was broken, so how do you explain to the people that feel cheated (or were cheated) by a lack of administration of the rule, why you chose not to call it?

A good example of this one is 5 seconds closely guarded. The rule says within 6 feet. If a defender has been within 6 feet guarding a player who has continued to stand or dribble, they have done everything that they need to in order to get possession of the ball. Choosing not to extend the count out to 6 feet, or not counting "real" seconds, or not starting the count as soon as the closely guarded situation exists, is penalizing the defense for doing what they are supposed to.

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by drinkeii
This thread raises several questions I have had since I started officiating 7 years ago. (and yes, I did read just about every post in the thread before I posted this)

1) Why have rules, if the officials are going to consistently choose not to administer them?

2) Why do officials take pride in the fact that they have "never" or "rarely" made calls, which by the rules, are required to be made? (3 seconds or technical fouls, for example)

I understand there is a certain amount of judgement required for the administration of the rules - but some rules are cut and dried, and when officials choose not to enforce them, because they a) don't like the rule, b) don't like the effect calling it is going to have on the coach, players, fans, game flow, etc, or c) just don't care (which I have worked with officials who have said this to me in response to why a call wasn't made on something i felt was obvious, but was in their primary, so I passed), it doesn't make sense to have those rules in place.

Just like a cop can choose not to give you a ticket for speeding, officials can choose not to administer a specific rule under a specific circumstance. However, in both cases, a rule/law was broken, so how do you explain to the people that feel cheated (or were cheated) by a lack of administration of the rule, why you chose not to call it?

A good example of this one is 5 seconds closely guarded. The rule says within 6 feet. If a defender has been within 6 feet guarding a player who has continued to stand or dribble, they have done everything that they need to in order to get possession of the ball. Choosing not to extend the count out to 6 feet, or not counting "real" seconds, or not starting the count as soon as the closely guarded situation exists, is penalizing the defense for doing what they are supposed to.

To an extent, I agree with you. I call the book, including three seconds if it happens. However, I've never seen the occasion to call the multiple foul, for example.

[drinkeii]

But there is a big difference between never seeing a situation to call a particular rule, and choosing not to call it for the various reasons I listed above. Major difference.

[WooPigSooie]

Since there has been some discussion about this, I need to ask a question.... Regarding the rule of a blocking foul to be called if the defender has a foot on the OOB line. What if the offensive player lowers the shoulder and makes contact with the player OOB. Which takes precedent? Do you have a PC foul or a block?

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by WooPigSooie
Since there has been some discussion about this, I need to ask a question.... Regarding the rule of a blocking foul to be called if the defender has a foot on the OOB line. What if the offensive player lowers the shoulder and makes contact with the player OOB. Which takes precedent? Do you have a PC foul or a block?

By definition, if you call it straight by the book, any contact in that situation is a blocking foul. The only way you could call a foul on the offensive player is if it was intentional or flagrant, the way I understand it. It's impossible to have LGP with a foot out of bounds, so no offensive foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by WooPigSooie
Since there has been some discussion about this, I need to ask a question.... Regarding the rule of a blocking foul to be called if the defender has a foot on the OOB line. What if the offensive player lowers the shoulder and makes contact with the player OOB. Which takes precedent? Do you have a PC foul or a block?

This rule simply states that a player who is OOB can't have LGP. It doesn't say they can't be fouled. If the foul doesn't depend on LGP, you can still have an offensive foul.

The case book gives an example of a player, in the process of guarding another player, steps on the line and is contacted while the foot is OOB. It is a block since the contact occured while the defender didn't have LGP at the time of contact and needed to have it (defender was actively guarding/moving) in order for it to be a charge.

Also, don't be confused by the lowering of the shoulder. It's ALL about LGP. If the defender is moving toward the dribbler and is not in a LGP it can be his foul even if the offensive player lowers his shoulder. The offensive player is not reqired to collide with the defender in any specific orientation in order to draw a foul. Howveer, the lowering of the shoulder is a clue to who caused the contact if the defender is legal.





[Edited by Camron Rust on Mar 14th, 2006 at 09:12 PM]

[Adam]

Originally posted by drinkeii
But there is a big difference between never seeing a situation to call a particular rule, and choosing not to call it for the various reasons I listed above. Major difference.

I was just thinking of this point as I was catching up on this thread. There's a difference between the most-often-ignored rules and the least-called rules.
Multiple foul would arguably be the least called, but not the most ignored.
Three-seconds is likely the most ignored, but not the least called. In girls games, the heel over the lane line would be the most ignored.

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

I was just thinking of this point as I was catching up on this thread. There's a difference between the most-often-ignored rules and the least-called rules.
Multiple foul would arguably be the least called, but not the most ignored.
Three-seconds is likely the most ignored, but not the least called. In girls games, the heel over the lane line would be the most ignored.

What heel? I didn't see it!

[Rich]

Originally posted by drinkeii
This thread raises several questions I have had since I started officiating 7 years ago. (and yes, I did read just about every post in the thread before I posted this)

1) Why have rules, if the officials are going to consistently choose not to administer them?

2) Why do officials take pride in the fact that they have "never" or "rarely" made calls, which by the rules, are required to be made? (3 seconds or technical fouls, for example)

I understand there is a certain amount of judgement required for the administration of the rules - but some rules are cut and dried, and when officials choose not to enforce them, because they a) don't like the rule, b) don't like the effect calling it is going to have on the coach, players, fans, game flow, etc, or c) just don't care (which I have worked with officials who have said this to me in response to why a call wasn't made on something i felt was obvious, but was in their primary, so I passed), it doesn't make sense to have those rules in place.

Just like a cop can choose not to give you a ticket for speeding, officials can choose not to administer a specific rule under a specific circumstance. However, in both cases, a rule/law was broken, so how do you explain to the people that feel cheated (or were cheated) by a lack of administration of the rule, why you chose not to call it?

A good example of this one is 5 seconds closely guarded. The rule says within 6 feet. If a defender has been within 6 feet guarding a player who has continued to stand or dribble, they have done everything that they need to in order to get possession of the ball. Choosing not to extend the count out to 6 feet, or not counting "real" seconds, or not starting the count as soon as the closely guarded situation exists, is penalizing the defense for doing what they are supposed to.

Game sense. Sometimes it doesn't benefit the game to make a highly technical call. For example, the heel on the lane line for 3 seconds opposite the ball -- by rule, it's a 3-second violation. But it doesn't satisfy the spirit of the rule.

To younger officials or those who haven't stepped up into higher level (let's say consistent varsity schedules) see this as inconsistent. Eventually, though, once the light comes on, it becomes having a feel for the game and calling it accordingly.