How often do you see this???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bbref3103

Extremely well stated!!

Welcome back.

More AAU stories

Always glad to read your views on officiating....

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Welcome back.

I was wondering what the heck made you dig up that old thread. . .

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

I was wondering what the heck made you dig up that old thread. . .

He's got a mind like a (rusty?) steel trap to remember that name.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

He's got a mind like a (rusty?) steel trap to remember that name.

Kinda tough to forget a guy that dumped all over the lowly high school officials in one of his posts, but then admitted in another post that he's only in his 5th year of officiating. I'm still waiting for him to confirm what level he's currently working at. Has to be at least D1 if not the NBA.

And his initial post and advice on the art of game management as applied to coaches was a good 'un too....

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Kinda tough to forget a guy that dumped all over the lowly high school officials in one of his posts, but then admitted in another post that he's only in his 5th year of officiating. I'm still waiting for him to confirm what level he's currently working at. Has to be at least D1 if not the NBA.

And his initial post and advice on the art of game management as applied to coaches was a good 'un too....

Once you brought up the old thread, I remembered his comments as well. I had just put him/her on my "mental block list". I would be curious to hear how he came to adopt his philosophies; surely he must've been mentored by some great names.

[SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

First off, let me say that in principle I agree with the gist of your post...my one disagreement however is that the fouls off-ball must be "obvious" in order to call them. Obvious to whom? There are any number of things which will not be seen by the coach/fans, but absolutely have to be called in order to protect the game and the players and to keep things from getting out of hand. Example - HS summer league Varsity Boys last Saturday - forward for white team being blocked out quite nicely by forward from red team decides to pinch red forward in the side of the stomache...I can pretty much guarantee you that I was the only one who saw it, called it, and when the coach does the "What did he do?" routine, told him exactly what happened and he sat the kid down. That was not "obvious" but it definitely had to be called...so I think we need to be careful about the phrase "call the obvious fouls" to the exclusion of all other fouls...

You make some very good points here. When I say obvious, I mean obvious to the tape. In other words, when they show the replay, that foul better be there, or it had better have had an influence on the play, or when the coach reviews the tape the next day, he should not have to rewind 5 times to find the foul. In the case of the pinching incident, that's a must get too in my opinion because it's non basketball and it's very easy to explain to the coach. Of course if you've stopped the game numerous times with calls that aren't obvious and don't make sense, it might cause you to lose your credibility with the coach and have him roll his eyes when you explain what happened.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Maybe traveling, carrying and off ball fouls get called because they're rules. Maybe they also get called because all three have been and still are concerns of both the NFHS and the NCAA; all have been repeated POE's in the last few years.

Sure traveling and carrying are rules and you say advantage/disadvantage doesn't apply to violations, but how many of us actually apply the letter of the rule everytime when it comes to violations, and what do we think of officials who do? Who's gonna call 3 seconds everytime when a player is not involved in the play. Perfect example is during an interrupted dribble the count remains in effect, so what about the guy who makes the 3 seconds call when the ball is loose near the division line? Another example is NFHS rule 9.3.2 or "leaving the court for unauthorized reasons." Correct me if I'm wrong but this was a POE a year or two ago and they wanted Ts. I once saw someone call that one 4 times in a game, and all four times the player did leave the court and technically the official was right, but the coaches had this guy's backside and nobody knew what in the hell he was calling. Is that a guy who has the balls to make the right call, or a guy with bad judgement? Traveling and carrying, in my opinion should be officiated in the same way, the calls should be the obvious ones and the ones that create an advantage and we should err on the side of calling fewer travels and definitely shouldn't be out looking to call travels and carries and getting the ones that you have to look at 10 times on the replay to determine if it's the right call.

As for the off ball fouls NFHS rule 4.27 indicates that there can be incidental contact and 4.27.3 specifies that contact that does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal maneuvers is incidental. In other words if it doesn't affect the play, isn't non basketball and isn't obviously rough, it shouldn't be called.

Calling things that aren't obvious or aren't there really hurts your credibility in my opinion. You are needlessly stopping the game, interrupting the flow and being an irritant to the players and coaches. Just my opinion though.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

Calling things that aren't obvious or aren't there really hurts your credibility in my opinion. You are needlessly stopping the game, interrupting the flow and being an irritant to the players and coaches. Just my opinion though.

I don't have a problem with that at all. I do have a problem when you advocate not calling things that are there though. We're just gonna haveta disagree on that one, I guess.

[M&M Guy]

We have to be careful when we use phrases like "advantage/disadvantage", "call the obvious", and "not having an effect on the play". I still see plays where a defender gets leveled with an elbow on an illegal screen while the ball is on the other side of the floor, and the official lets it go because "it didn't have an effect on the play", or "no one else saw it". In other words, they were too lazy to make the obvious call, and used those phrases as an excuse. How do we know it didn't have an effect? Should we wait until we see the offensive player wipe off that screen, receive the pass, and then make the open shot? And, if they don't, there's no advantage? Of course not; the player with the elbow gained the unfair advantage by causing the other player to move off their route due to that contact. When you start applying adv/disadv to violations however, I think you'll start more problems than you will avoid. What about the guard in the front court, seeing the defense sitting in a zone, steps back while dribbling to call a play, and while unguarded, steps with the back of their heel on the midcourt line. No other player is within 20 feet. Do you let the backcourt violation go? What do you tell the other coach who also sees it? I would call that violation; there are officials that would say it didn't have an effect because they weren't being guarded. I would say the player had an unfair advantage by using more of the playing surface than they were allowed by rule.

Again, we use many of these phrases all the time, and most of us know what they mean and to apply them. There are the officials that mis-use them to justify not making calls. And I'm kind of in the camp that feels adv/disadv applies more to fouls than violations.

[SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Again, we use many of these phrases all the time, and most of us know what they mean and to apply them. There are the officials that mis-use them to justify not making calls. And I'm kind of in the camp that feels adv/disadv applies more to fouls than violations.

I agree with you, advantage/disadvantage applies far more to fouls than violations, and I'm not advocating ignoring the obvious stuff. I think the point that I am trying to make is that we shouldn't narrowly focus on getting every single violation, or in other words, go out there looking for travels.

In terms of the illegal screen you mentioned, that's not what I meant by "no effect on the play." If there's an elbow or a player gets clearly chucked off his path, that's a foul and should be called, regardless of it the ball's on the other side. Retaliation and problems with the game will follow if you don't get that. I was talking more about marginal screens that don't really impact the defender's path. Another good example is handchecking, I think we look for handchecks and kill plays way too early by not giving the offense a chance to play through and make a play.

My point isn't that we should ignore off ball fouls or violations, but simply that we shouldn't be out looking for them. Just call them when they're obvious and they present themselves and/or cause an advantage/disadvantage. While there are many officials who will use the phrases as excuses for missing a call, there are just as many who ruin games by hunting for and finding an excuse to blow the whistle needlessly and becoming irritants. That is why I don't agree with the philosophy of looking to "get" the travels and carries but subscribe to the philosophy that we should get them when they're obvious.

[M&M Guy]

Ok, I guess we're not too far apart. I think we both want the same thing, on both sides - you don't want too much called just for the sake of calling things "by the book", and I don't want too little called just for the sake of "advantage/disadvantage". I guess it's knowing how to tread in that area in between that separates the good from the great.

[SMEngmann]

Very eloquently stated M&M.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

It is obvious to me that legal gaurding position is a concept that does not translate to the NBA. This frustrates me. Do you agree? Disagree?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

It is obvious to me that legal gaurding position is a concept that does not translate to the NBA. This frustrates me. Do you agree? Disagree?

I absolutely agree that it frustrates you. I disagree if you are claiming that LGP is not understood or applied in the NBA.

[tnzebra]

I also agree the T for hanging on the rim was a "reach"......

[BillyMac]

The Tower Philosophy

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles:

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"