Fresh From Camp Tidbits....

[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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Hand Checking is a good example. It is NEVER legal, according to the rules, to touch the dribbler.

This statement is false.

[tmp44]

Camp I went to this year, the directors were introducting the concept of never calling a hold. Their philosophy...If it's a hold, it's an intentional foul. A hold is not a basketball play. Therefore, even if you have a common foul that you would normally call a "hold," come up with illegal use of the hands or a push, whichever would cover the play more. Thoughts?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tmp44

Camp I went to this year, the directors were introducting the concept of never calling a hold. Their philosophy...If it's a hold, it's an intentional foul. A hold is not a basketball play. Therefore, even if you have a common foul that you would normally call a "hold," come up with illegal use of the hands or a push, whichever would cover the play more. Thoughts?

Thoughts?

That might just be the dumbest thing that I've heard of coming out of a camp- any camp.

NFHS signal #30 is "HOLDING". NCAA signal #21 is "HOLDING".

Both rule books recognizes holding as a normal, every-day foul. Those camp director/goobers obviously don't believe those rule books. Either that or they've never read them.

Lah me, what will they come up with next?

[Larks]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

goobers

Dont be insultin my man Goob now.....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Larks

Dont be insultin my man Goob now.....

Ah yes, another Cinci grad makes good.....

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by tmp44

Camp I went to this year, the directors were introducting the concept of never calling a hold. Their philosophy...If it's a hold, it's an intentional foul. A hold is not a basketball play. Therefore, even if you have a common foul that you would normally call a "hold," come up with illegal use of the hands or a push, whichever would cover the play more. Thoughts?

I'm w/ Jurassic. I've heard some dumb comments coming out of camps, but that one takes the cake. It always cracks me up when a clinicain becomes such a fan of their own that they circumvent the rulebook because they are "smarter."

I have heard that in the last 2 minutes of a closely-contested game, any hold should be a signaled as a hack or a push (because it looks stronger), but I don't buy that either. A hold is a hold is a hold.

Z

[Rich]

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.

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?

What we do is not noble. It's a job. Those that hire us, at the end of the day, make the rules. If we call contrary to the instructions of those that hire us, we don't work. I've made that decision (to not work) before, but would I want to go down in flames at the NCAA D-I level over something like this? Nope. Nor will anyone actually IN that position.