Fresh From Camp Tidbits....

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just learned in the past two camps I have attended that Women's and NBA basketball was not seen in a very positive light.

Peace

What about the women's college game is not viewed in a positive light?

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It all depends on who's watching. I had that play also as the lead. Trail came in (with a late whistle) and made the call. At the next time-out he came in and asked why Slot and I passed on foul. Slot said he didn't see any contact and only contact I saw I thought was incidental. After the game, the 2 big dawgs watching on the side praised the trail for coming in with the late whistle. Apparently there was more contact than I saw from my angle.

BTW, IREFU2 and I were at the same camp.

I saw that play and you were straight lined and couldnt see what happened. So you werent at fault. You would have to had did a complete 180 to see it. Will you be around this weekend?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BLydic

What about the women's college game is not viewed in a positive light?

I think JRut is referring to the styles, philosophies, coverage areas, and mechanics of NCAA-W and NBA (and by default the SEC) officiating.

I went to a camp 2 years ago here in Virginia in which the camp directors didn't speak too fondly of what was being taught by the folks further down south.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I went to a camp 2 years ago here in Virginia in which the camp directors didn't speak too fondly of what was be taught by the folks further down south.

From my experience, you can not only get different opinions from conference to conference, you can also get different opinions from official to official within a conference. Jmo, but I think that you have to form your own opinion on some calls and then try to be consistent to your beliefs. Of course, if your evaluators in a league you're working in tell you to call something a certain way, you'd also better damn well do as they suggest.

Personally, I'm in the camp that says if a defender knocks an airborne shooter down with contact, a foul should be called on the defender- all-ball or no all-ball. A shooter is just way too vulnerable up there imo. I also believe, however, that you can't make an absolute blanket rule to that effect. You might get a play where the shooter goes down, and you really don't think the circumstances warrant a foul at that particular time. Wishy-washy, eh?

I do know that SEC football officials have been trained differently than most other conferences, and very few other conferences' officials' groups agree at all with the SEC way of doing things.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BLydic

What about the women's college game is not viewed in a positive light?

An Official not stopping the clock on out of bounds plays was talked about frequently at this camp. Lead officials rotating for apparently no reason. Two hand reporting was talked about. If an official came from the Guthrie system, it was pointed out that was not the way to officiate the game or signal. It is very clear that the Men's game wants to be different.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Hey Rut,

I was at a local camps this weekend and I had the same play just about. It was a shot block then contact and I passed on the foul. My partner came all the way in my area and called the foul and the coach hit the roof. I couldnt agree more that contact after a shot block is deemed incidental!

My only problem is that such statements are applied too broadly. I too typically pass on contact that follows a block...but only to a point. At some point, the contact becomes too substantial to not be a foul. Where that point lies is certainly a topic worthy of debate but such a line should and does exist.

To say a blocker shouldn't be held liable for any contact after a block is analagous to saying a shooter shouldn't be held liable for anycontact after the shot is released...no matter how hard. The NFHS and NCAA have different penalties for this situation but it is called if the conact is enough.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My only problem is that such statements are applied too broadly. I too typically pass on contact that follows a block...but only to a point. At some point, the contact becomes too substantial to not be a foul. Where that point lies is certainly a topic worthy of debate but such a line should and does exist.

To say a blocker shouldn't be held liable for any contact after a block is analagous to saying a shooter shouldn't be held liable for anycontact after the shot is released...no matter how hard. The NFHS and NCAA have different penalties for this situation but it is called if the conact is enough.

No doubt about that and trust me I will call a foul by all mean if the shooter is put at a disadvantage or if contact caused him to miss the shot.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Larks

1. Make sure you take your pants

This may be the single best piece of advice we will ever get!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My only problem is that such statements are applied too broadly. I too typically pass on contact that follows a block...but only to a point. At some point, the contact becomes too substantial to not be a foul. Where that point lies is certainly a topic worthy of debate but such a line should and does exist.

To say a blocker shouldn't be held liable for any contact after a block is analagous to saying a shooter shouldn't be held liable for anycontact after the shot is released...no matter how hard. The NFHS and NCAA have different penalties for this situation but it is called if the conact is enough.

This is why the term is called "judgment." You do not have to agree, but if the right people do not agree with your judgment, you will not get hired. So it really is irrelevant what the NF or NCAA says. Kind of like what happens in football. The NF or NCAA does not give the philosophy as to how to call holding, but if you want to work higher level ball, you use the philosophy that is widely accepted or you stay at home.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is why the term is called "judgment." You do not have to agree, but if the right people do not agree with your judgment, you will not get hired. So it really is irrelevant what the NF or NCAA says. Kind of like what happens in football. The NF or NCAA does not give the philosophy as to how to call holding, but if you want to work higher level ball, you use the philosophy that is widely accepted or you stay at home.

Peace

If you had actually understood my post, you'd realize I said exactly the same thing. The original statement made was that if the contact was after a block, it is not a foul...without any consideration of judgement. At every level, there will be some amount of contact, even after the block, that will draw a whistle. It make take a beheading but it exists. The point at which the whistle comes varies from level to level and from assignor to assignor, as I already said, and that is the judgement you're talking about.

[Raymond]

Just got back from the Referee's Choice camp and I'm headed to another camp in the morning.

One thing that really hit home for me is that supervisors expect us as referee's to ALWAYS be professional when dealing with coaches, no matter how much of an a$$ they are being. We cannot lower ourselves into the fray. I'm one of those quick-witted, sharped tongue, sarcastic individuals. Thinking back on my short career, those traits probably haven't served me well (except in Adult Rec Leagues of course).

So here are the 4 actions I will start confining myself to when dealing with coaches.

• Listen

• Short, appropriate responses to specific questions

• Warn

• Tech

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My only problem is that such statements are applied too broadly. I too typically pass on contact that follows a block...but only to a point. At some point, the contact becomes too substantial to not be a foul. Where that point lies is certainly a topic worthy of debate but such a line should and does exist.

To say a blocker shouldn't be held liable for any contact after a block is analagous to saying a shooter shouldn't be held liable for anycontact after the shot is released...no matter how hard. The NFHS and NCAA have different penalties for this situation but it is called if the conact is enough.

I agree. I cannot understand why officials are told that contact following a good block (or other "good" play) should be ignored.This is, IMHO, the devolution of the sport that has lead to the NBA really not being basketball - it is more of a game played and called for the benefit of the spectators. Don't call travels, don't call contact after good-looking plays, don't call fouls on superstars (but definitely call fouls people have against the superstars), etc. Why have any rules? The NBA, if this devolution continues, could end up playing games And-1 Mixtape style (which, I like - but isn't "basketball" by the rules, which is what the game itself is supposed to be).

This has worked its way down to the college level already - officials being told to ignore contact after a good block, and every three point shooter getting hit after the release of the ball, just to name a few (I know there is a difference between NFHS and NCAA in terms of what is considered an airborne shooter, but no one seems to ever call the non-shooting foul when a 3 point shooter releases than definitely gets fouled, even "after the shot" - and this happens all the time).

And it is working its way down to the high school level, with officials at camps being told to ignore contact after a good block.

This is a slippery slope...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

This has worked its way down to the college level already - officials being told to ignore contact after a good block, and every three point shooter getting hit after the release of the ball, just to name a few (I know there is a difference between NFHS and NCAA in terms of what is considered an airborne shooter, but no one seems to ever call the non-shooting foul when a 3 point shooter releases than definitely gets fouled, even "after the shot" - and this happens all the time).

And it is working its way down to the high school level, with officials at camps being told to ignore contact after a good block.

This is a slippery slope...

Jmo, but I think that it might be more a league thing at the NCAA level, and it actually varies from group to group. All college officials sureasheck aren't being told to ignore illegal contact after a good block; I've seen way too many calls to the contrary on tv.

As to the high school level, I'm not really aware of anybody teaching officials to ignore contact. I think that in some cases they might be teaching officials to ignore certain types of contact, but certainly not all contact.

And as for the NBA, I sureasheck agree with you on that league. I don't have a clue what traveling, palming, or a foul,etc. are anymore. It's become unwatchable imo.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jmo, but I think that it might be more a league thing at the NCAA level, and it actually varies from group to group. All college officials sureasheck aren't being told to ignore illegal contact after a good block; I've seen way too many calls to the contrary on tv.

As to the high school level, I'm not really aware of anybody teaching officials to ignore contact. I think that in some cases they might be teaching officials to ignore certain types of contact, but certainly not all contact.

And as for the NBA, I sureasheck agree with you on that league. I don't have a clue what traveling, palming, or a foul,etc. are anymore. It's become unwatchable imo.

But when the rules say a specific kind of contact is illegal, and the officials are told to ignore that kind of contact after a "good" play (which the rules don't define, nor do they ever say "...unless a crowd-pleasing play took place, in which case, ignore the foul..."), they are being told to officiate a game in a way in which the rules never intended.

We have entire committees that write and approve the rules. I'm not saying I agree with every rule out there, but I use them as they are written, and as the cases say we should interpret them, in officiating my games. Just because an official, an assignor, etc, decides they don't like a rule doesn't mean they have the right to just decide to change the game in favor of their opinion, and rewrite the rules for that game in the way they would like to see them written.

I didn't sign up to officiate "me-sketball", or "assignor-sketball" - I signed up to officiate basketball. Basketball, like any game, has rules, and I would think that as officials for a sport, we have an obligation to these rules. I have always said my heirarchy for officiating is "1. Player Safety, 2. Rules, 3. Game flow". If the players play safely for their level, and play within the rules, they will have more game flow than they can handle. If they choose not to stay within the first two areas, they don't get very far into the third.

I have to say, in officiating several sports, I believe Basketball varies the most from game to game. In many sports, the players come in with a pretty good idea of what is legal and what is not, and what they can and cannot do. In basketball, the players have to adapt their entire game strategy to what the refs are calling and not calling that day. This happens to a lesser extent in other sports, but I believe is a major hurdle to the progress of this game. Coaches teach players things to break rules that they know are unlikely to be called, and tell the players to stop doing it if they get called for it - Hand Checking is a good example. It is NEVER legal, according to the rules, to touch the dribbler. Many officials allow players to "tag up" (again, defined in the rules as illegal), or even leave a hand on the dribbler as they are running (again, defined in the rules as illegal). Some officials are picky on this one, many are not. Another example would be the girls in girls games who set up with their heels over the lines or neutral zone blocks - many officials won't warn or call the violation. Some will warn. Very few will call this violation, even though it is well defined in the rules. Another example is the T for going out of bounds that existed for a few years. Very few officials called it, so the rules people changed it to a violation. Who are we to say the group who defined the rules was wrong? But we did - most people refused to call this technical foul.

I think that official use the terms "judgement" and "game management", among others, as excuses for not applying rules they don't think should be applied as they are written and intended. Good game management is not rewriting the rules to match what you would like to see the game be or become - it is officiating a game fairly, keeping everyone safe, and going home at the end feeling that you gave your best. If this includes making calls that are unpopular, so be it - the game is not written for a popularity contest for the officials.

How can you play a game without rules, or with rules that change day to day, game to game, by the person enforcing them?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

But when the rules say a specific kind of contact is illegal, and the officials are told to ignore that kind of contact after a "good" play (which the rules don't define, nor do they ever say "...unless a crowd-pleasing play took place, in which case, ignore the foul..."), they are being told to officiate a game in a way in which the rules never intended.

We have entire committees that write and approve the rules. I'm not saying I agree with every rule out there, but I use them as they are written, and as the cases say we should interpret them, in officiating my games. Just because an official, an assignor, etc, decides they don't like a rule doesn't mean they have the right to just decide to change the game in favor of their opinion, and rewrite the rules for that game in the way they would like to see them written.

I didn't sign up to officiate "me-sketball", or "assignor-sketball" - I signed up to officiate basketball. Basketball, like any game, has rules, and I would think that as officials for a sport, we have an obligation to these rules. I have always said my heirarchy for officiating is "1. Player Safety, 2. Rules, 3. Game flow". If the players play safely for their level, and play within the rules, they will have more game flow than they can handle. If they choose not to stay within the first two areas, they don't get very far into the third.

I have to say, in officiating several sports, I believe Basketball varies the most from game to game. In many sports, the players come in with a pretty good idea of what is legal and what is not, and what they can and cannot do. In basketball, the players have to adapt their entire game strategy to what the refs are calling and not calling that day. This happens to a lesser extent in other sports, but I believe is a major hurdle to the progress of this game. Coaches teach players things to break rules that they know are unlikely to be called, and tell the players to stop doing it if they get called for it - Hand Checking is a good example. It is NEVER legal, according to the rules, to touch the dribbler. Many officials allow players to "tag up" (again, defined in the rules as illegal), or even leave a hand on the dribbler as they are running (again, defined in the rules as illegal). Some officials are picky on this one, many are not. Another example would be the girls in girls games who set up with their heels over the lines or neutral zone blocks - many officials won't warn or call the violation. Some will warn. Very few will call this violation, even though it is well defined in the rules. Another example is the T for going out of bounds that existed for a few years. Very few officials called it, so the rules people changed it to a violation. Who are we to say the group who defined the rules was wrong? But we did - most people refused to call this technical foul.

How can you play a game without rules, or with rules that change day to day, game to game, by the person enforcing them?

Good post, and I certainly agree with a lot of it.

Unfortunately, there is a real world out there. If a director of officials, say from the SEC, tells his officials that he doesn't want contact called after a good block, then unless you're one of the top-rated officials in the country and can get away with it, you had better not be calling fouls on those plays if you want to continue working in the SEC. And I can agree with some of that too, like it or not, just from a "uniformity of calls" standpoint. Coaches and players shoud know what they can and can't get away with it, and what they can teach or not teach.

Rules are a guideline usually, David; they aren't always meant to be interpreted literally. Having the acumen to instinctively know when to call or no-call something for the betterment of a particular game is a trait possessed by all top officials imo.

I also believe that it doesn't really matter what an individual official calls out there either. If that official is consistent from the beginning to the end of the game, the players and coaches are smart enough to adjust to that official in a hurry. You have a heckuva lot more problems in a game if you don't have crew consistency though- i.e. one official maybe calling a real tight game and the other crew members letting a lot of contact go.