How often do you see this???

[SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by JLMatthew

They called 5 travels in games 1 and 2 also...It's the old veterans making those calls. Also have seen lots of off-ball offensive foul calls. It's a breath of fresh air.

I don't understand the current preoccupation that officials have now about emphasizing travelling, carrying and off ball fouls such as marginal bad screens. These violations are game interrupters that put the focus of the game squarely on the officials. Travelling and carrying should be called when obvious and when they cause an advantage IMO. If you gotta replay the tape 5 times to see the travel, it's not a travel. If a player palms the ball while dribbling in the open court, why stop the game and call it? Also, officials who become "travel officials" are so focused on the violation that they cannot effectively referee the defense. Call the obvious, call what matters, it just leads to a much better game.

As for the off ball offensive fouls, same principle. If there's an advantage, it's obvious or non-basketball, get it, if it's marginal, or there's doubt, why stop the game? If these fouls aren't obvious, the game will get out of hand very quickly, putting a negative focus squarely on the officials. For the record, every one of the NBA off ball fouls/travels were obvious and had to be gotten, they were quality calls.

To sum up, and I know a lot of people will disagree, the emphasis should not be the number of off ball calls or violations, but the quality of those calls, especially considering the context of the game. Too many people wrongly justify weak calls by claiming to "preserve the integrity of the game." Hogwash, consider the context of the game and the spirit and intent of the rules and call the obvious, it leads to a better game and less trouble.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

I don't understand the current preoccupation that officials have now about emphasizing travelling, carrying and off ball fouls such as marginal bad screens. These violations are game interrupters that put the focus of the game squarely on the officials. Travelling and carrying should be called when obvious and when they cause an advantage IMO.

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. Maybe they're finally getting called too in the NBA because viewers are sick of watching streetball with no rules and the ratings were going south. People, including posters here, weren't complaining about "marginal" calls in the NBA; they were complaining about very obvious and blatant calls that were being ignored. I'm in that camp btw.

Advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations. You're not describing "game interrupters"; you're describing rec league and AAU ball at it's finest.

And, as for putting the focus of the game squarely on officials, personally I'll take the official who's got the balls to make a tough call over the one who doesn't have that particular attribute. An official who is not afraid to make the tough call is naturally gonna get some attention for making a tough call.....and that attention doesn't both them one bit.

[Jimgolf]

This series has seemed closely called from game one. The players were upset at first, but they have adjusted, as smart players will. The NBA thinks it is on the world stage now and muat have wanted the officials to follow the rulebook closely so the world perceives an evenly officiated series. I watch NBA throughout the year and this is the best officiating I've seen in years.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world is watching the World Cup, so the NBA is wasting it's time.

The fans are seeing the NBA game at it's finest. If you don't like what you see, don't bother tuning in to the NBA anymore, because it don't get any better. I'm enjoying watching the Dwyane Wade legend grow, the Shaq legend reach its denouement, and Dirk Nowitzki making a bid for the Hall of Fame.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

To sum up, and I know a lot of people will disagree, the emphasis should not be the number of off ball calls or violations, but the quality of those calls, especially considering the context of the game. Too many people wrongly justify weak calls by claiming to "preserve the integrity of the game." Hogwash, consider the context of the game and the spirit and intent of the rules and call the obvious, it leads to a better game and less trouble.

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...

[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.

[tnzebra]

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