order of calling fouls and other questions

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Well, that all sounds great, too. So then, I guess it's all right with you if refs start using the phrase "over the back foul". Because whether you call it a "push" or "over the back", you have to call the foul. Right? Since it doesn't matter what we call things now.

I disagree with you. The term "over the back" suggests there is something illegal about being behind a player on a rebound or other situations that the rules do not cover. If I call a flagrant foul on someone, it does not matter what you consider it to be, the application is the same (at least to me it does not).

I called a flagrant foul on a screen during a tournament in 2005. I went up with the intentional foul signal because I did not know what else to do. I just knew the act was intentional if nothing else was called. My partner saw the same thing and ran to me and said, "You are going to eject him right?" I agreed with him and I went to the table and announced a flagrant foul, gave the umpire thumb and no one said a word. All the coach wanted to know was what his player did. The coach removed the player from the rest of the tournament. The coach apologized to the tournament director and not a peep was said to me or anyone about the call or mechanic used. I later asked a bunch of other officials as to what signal we were supposed to use and how we report it. No one seemed to know either and they said they might do the same thing I did. So if you apply the rule properly, it does not matter what you call it. Same goes for a false double foul and all the situations surrounding a false double foul. It only matters how you apply the rule properly not exactly what you call it in this situation. A flagrant foul is a flagrant foul.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with you. The term "over the back" suggests there is something illegal about being behind a player on a rebound or other situations that the rules do not cover.

So the rules do cover an intentional flagrant foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

So the rules do cover an intentional flagrant foul?

Do they? You tell me.

Peace

[Dribble]

JRut, I think the fact that there isn't a mechanic for a flagrant foul doesn't mean that you can "call" it anything you want. In fact, to signal it with the intentional foul signal is incorrect unless at that moment you were going to assess an intentional foul rather than the flagrant. My understanding for reporting a flagrant foul is that you signal a foul with your fist and report the flagrant to the table, which leads to the ejection of the player.

Just because the coaches may not know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant foul doesn't mean that we should muddy the water ourselves. I think you may have mistakenly made that post earlier with regards to the "intentional flagrant foul" and now you're trying to back it up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dribble

JRut, I think the fact that there isn't a mechanic for a flagrant foul doesn't mean that you can "call" it anything you want. In fact, to signal it with the intentional foul signal is incorrect unless at that moment you were going to assess an intentional foul rather than the flagrant. My understanding for reporting a flagrant foul is that you signal a foul with your fist and report the flagrant to the table, which leads to the ejection of the player.

So what you are saying is that we have to call it exactly as the rulebook says or we cannot apply the rule properly? Interesting concept, I will have to remember that next time.

Originally Posted by Dribble

Just because the coaches may not know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant foul doesn't mean that we should muddy the water ourselves. I think you may have mistakenly made that post earlier with regards to the "intentional flagrant foul" and now you're trying to back it up.

Which is it? Do the coaches know the difference or do they care if you apply the rules properly?

Also I know there is no such thing as an "Intentional flagrant foul." That is what the rulebook is for, so you can look these things up. All fouls are either Personal or Technical. Find out the difference and apply the rules properly. I have called a false double foul and I never used the term "false double foul" as the explanation. People here double foul they think all double fouls are the same. If it floats your boat, call it what you like.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When have you meet a coach that knows the difference? If they know the rules that well, they know what flagrant means. It is not about the language, it is about what you called and what you are going to do after the foul.

Peace

This is eactly WHY coaches get confused on things. They see some officials winging it by using improper terminology. Then the next time when someone does it right, they don't understand. Saying improper terminology is ok if you look good doing it and the result is right is part of the problem with coaches. They want consistency both in the calls and what the calls are called. Made up terms only guarantee inconsistency.

[JRutledge]

If you say so.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Question 2. If a players number is recorded in the score book and the player allowed to enter the game at anytime without a penalty to that team?

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005

Question 73. Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warmup, the referee counts eleven team members of team A but while checking the book team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation:Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Question 2. If a players number is recorded in the score book and the player allowed to enter the game at anytime without a penalty to that team?

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005

Question 73. Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warmup, the referee counts eleven team members of team A but while checking the book team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation:Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

IAABO rules answers and interepretions are NOT official NFHS citations in most of the country. They are their own interpretations, and IAABO has been wrong many times- including this one.

The referee above is NOT correct. THe IAABO answer above is completely wrong. Rule 3-2-1 simply lays out a team's requirements for handing in their roster. There is nothing anywhere in the rules saying that the players have to be physically present at this time.

Lah me......

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005

Question 73. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation:Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

This was the subject of a VERY lengthy conversation on one of the IAABO Interpreter conference calls this past season. Honestly, I don't remember much of the discussion except for my utter confusion at why it was even an issue. I think Peter Webb's conclusion was that the refresher answer is incorrect. The concensus was that we would do it the way we've always done it, which is to put all the names in and if the kid shows up late, it's not a problem.

I don't see anything in 3-2-1 or 4-34 that excludes a person from being a team member just b/c he's not yet on the court during warm-ups. If anyone else has a strong opinion supporting the refresher answer, I'd like to hear it.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do they? You tell me.

I already did. But you don't want to admit that you simply mis-spoke. No biggie. I won't belabor the point.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

This was the subject of a VERY lengthy conversation on one of the IAABO Interpreter conference calls this past season. Honestly, I don't remember much of the discussion except for my utter confusion at why it was even an issue. I think Peter Webb's conclusion was that the refresher answer is incorrect. The concensus was that we would do it the way we've always done it, which is to put all the names in and if the kid shows up late, it's not a problem.

I don't see anything in 3-2-1 or 4-34 that excludes a person from being a team member just b/c he's not yet on the court during warm-ups. If anyone else has a strong opinion supporting the refresher answer, I'd like to hear it.

I would hope that Peter Webb sent something out to all his constituents acknowledging the error.

Please note that Mr. Elias is the rules interpreter for his IAABO Board.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

I already did. But you don't want to admit that you simply mis-spoke. No biggie. I won't belabor the point.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also I know there is no such thing as an "Intentional flagrant foul."

Hmmmmm......Really.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Please note that Mr. Elias is the rules interpreter for his IAABO Board.

That, and $2.88, will get me a gallon of gas.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=ChuckElias] I think Peter Webb's conclusion was that the refresher answer is incorrect. The concensus was that we would do it the way we've always done it, which is to put all the names in and if the kid shows up late, it's not a problem.

[QUOTE]"Concensus", Mr. Spelling?

Unfortunately, it looks like Peter Webb didn't let anybody else know that the answer was incorrect. I just took a look at the test anwers posted on the IAABO web site, and they are still stating the WRONG answer for that particular question.

Kinda embarrassing isn't it, when your test answers are wrong?