Post Play
 

Do you allow a defender to get an elbow up on the post player if he is not pushing in any fashion??? Just leaning into each other a little?? or do you not allow anything?? Varsity boys...Thanks

You have to ask yourself a simple question: Did the defender prevent fluid movement of the offensive player by his actions? If the elbow prevents the offensive player from getting around or impedes his progress, I say yes the defender caused contact that was illegal. If the offensive player was not put at (an old term) a "disadvantage", then it is probably legal.

When you say "elbow", I'm going to assume you mean a forearm, when the arm is bent at the elbow. I would never allow a player to use his actual elbow.

In a college game, I will allow the forearm in the post if the two players are simply leaning on each other. If there is some jockeying for position, then I usually try to clean it up by saying "straight up!" Once the ball is in the post, no forearm, period.

In a HS game, no forearm in the post. I use "straight up" right away, whether they are just leaning or not. If they don't clean it up, it gets a whistle and a quick, "no arm-bars" to the coach if s/he asks.

Post play is something that should be addressed early in a game. The first time a team sets up; it is clear what the players are likely to do during the game. I will not allow any arm bar during a game without being talked out of, or just calling fouls. I would not allow this even in a college game because the people I work for think this is a foul considering the position of the NCAA and POEs that have come out in recent years.

Peace

What you are describing I let go if both post players can handle the contact.

This is hard because NFHS just puts this in their POE section every 1 out of 10 years, and college does not have great guidelines either.

In HS the norm seems to be that you can't put a forearm on a player regardless of whether you are using it to just hold your position or not, which I personally think is wrong, because the advantage is fully to the offensive player now because it makes it harder for the defensive player to hold his ground. JMO though.

In the college game the status quo seems to be that a forearm is ok until the post player who has the ball starts to dribble on a back down, which again I think puts the defender at a disadvantage, but you know what they say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

I have to disagree that this is allowed at the college level. I attended two D1 camps this past summer and I heard one of the supervisors that ran one of the camps express this is a foul. Then in the other camp it was explained that this should not be allowed and the term "this is not the NBA" came up a couple of times. You might see some contact with a forearm, but it does not seem to persist. It is not called as consistently, but I do not see someone just leave their forearm and it not be called when I watch major college ball. Small college there might be a hit and miss.

Peace

First , this is an excellent question & u can already see it carries several different opinions.Great topic to cover in pre game and at half time. Looking at it from the college, this is a form of hand checking. Very much so in the post. Without the ball I will allow him to have it there but not to guide but to brace or "feel". With the ball, only to brace for initial contact then drop it (to brace) any movement by the offense to make a offensive move with the elbow on-defensive foul.

Pregame Conference Re: Post Play
 

Here's what I discuss with my partner in our pregame conference regarding post play:

Post Play
- Let’s not allow a defender to use a forearm on a player with the ball.
- Let’s not allow a defender to use a leg or knee to move a player off the block.
- Let’s make sure the offensive player isn’t holding off the defender, or holding him with his off-hand.
- As Lead, let’s find the post matchup as soon as possible so that we get the first foul.
- Remember the RIDD’s. Don’t let players: Redirect, Impede, Displace,or Dislodge.

impressive. thanks for sharing that with me.

Does that mean that it's OK for a defender to use a forearm on a post player <b>without</b> the ball? Or any player, for that matter? :confused:

From an old but still valid NFHS POE on <b>ROUGH PLAY</b>:- <i>"Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of the contact, is a FOUL".</i>

I know this is going to sound snotty, and I don't mean it to. But it would be nice if you credited the author when you quote their stuff. This is lifted directly from my pre-game notes, which I posted here: http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=24907

In college, yes, that's what it means. But as I distinguished above, not in HS.

Yeah, what he said...

The advantage is only to the offense if the officials allow the offense to run over the defender without calling an offensive foul. The defender shouldn't be compelled to use their arm to maintain thier position.

JR,
Please direct me to the reference you are applying in this situation. As for me, a forearm in and of itself does not constitute a foul and to say that it is, seems a little officious. My interpretation of the OP is that they meant every time an arm bar is used is this a foul? It is not unless it impedes, reroutes, or displaces. A forearm can be used to absorb contact as long as it isn't extended.

If I am defending in the post, playing behind and to the side of the offense, I extend an arm to deter the entry pass and I have my off arm in front of my chest and more than likely it is in contact with the offense. If the offense ins't actively working to get the ball, I am not going to call this.

If memory serves the intent of the NFHS was to stop the pushing that players do with the arm bar, is this what you are referring to?

Nope, your memory is incorrect. the NFHS meant to <b>stop</b> the usage of an arm bar <b>completely</b>. Using the criteria "impedes, re-routes or displaces" basically is the NCAA Mens interpretation, <b>not</b> the NFHS'. The NCAA MENS POE says something to the effect that you can't use a forearm to prevent a player from attaining or maintaining their legal position.

That cite that I made is direct from POE 4A in the 2002-03 NFHS rule book, and it refers to a forearm on <b>any</b> player </b>anywhere</b> on the court. It was also repeated <i>verbatim</i> from the 2001-02 rulebook. The 2003-04 rulebook in POE 2A-7 also stated <i>"When a player jabs a hand or <b>forearm</b> on a player, it's a <b>foul</b>."</i>

Iow, maybe for you, the forearm in and of itself does not constitute a foul, but to the FED it sureasheck does. They said so for <b>three</b> straight years in their rule book.

Now, whether it gets called according to the FED interpretation faithfully is a whole 'nother matter. From the responses in this thread, I'd say that it looks like it depends on the region. Whether any of us agree or not personally, I think that whether the forearm is <b>uniformly</b> called throughout a region is more important anyway. The coaches and players should be able to know exactly what they can do out there from game to game without getting called for a foul.

Btw, in our region, we teach our officials to call the forearm immediately, with the same goal in mind as the FED....to cut down on rough play.

I knew that, Chuck. My cognitive skills haven't deteriorated that much with age, you elitist prick.:D

I am not an elitist!

This says that jabbing a forearm is a foul. Nothing more.

Um, yeah? And that's basically what the previous two years of NFHS POE's say also, as I cited previously. Iow, a foream is considered an automatic foul under NFHS rules.

I think I might be missing the point that you're trying to make.

Jim is distinguishing between "jabbing" (which the FED says is a foul) and simply having the forearm on the opponent without pushing or extending (which he would say is legal).

And, as I already cited previously from the POE's of 2001-02 and 2002-03, the NFHS rulesmakers have already stated that having a forearm on an opponent is illegal, no matter what. Iow, the FED is <b>not</b> distinguishing between how the forearm is used; they're simply saying that if you lay a forearm on another player in any way, you've fouled that player.

Note that I'm just regurgitating the FED cites; I'm not offering my own opinion in any way.

Around here we distinguish between "having a forearm <b>on</b> an opponent" and having a forearm up between the bodies where is't just sort of protecting personal space. Perhaps that's the difference.

Because several coaches (a number of local ex-DII players) teach the forearm as a defensive technique, I have taken the track of "talking" the forearm off, even when there is no ball in the post. If I get a chance, I will advise the player(s) that when they begin their college seasons the forearm will permitted.

Not sure I follow this Juulie.

my comprehensibility index is way, way down the last couple weeks, isn't it?

If the defender is in back of the offense (offender?!) and the offense is just backing up, and the defender is using the forearm to sort of help maintain position, to brace herself against the offense, then we don't call that. If she has it extended toward the offense, or is pushing, then call it.

I'm saying that this particular citation doesn't support the point that a forearm is an automatic foul, since it specifies jabbing, which no one would contend is not a foul.

BTW, in NYC it is called the way Rainmaker posted: If the forearm is not extended, then it is not called a foul.

And what's your position on the previous two year's citations.

Again, <i>verbatim</i> from the POE- "Use of the forearm regardless of the duration of the contact is a FOUL". Note that the FED capitalized the word "FOUL" in that citation, not me. Iow, if a player puts a forearm on any other player, no matter where it is on the court or for how long, they consider that a foul.

Do you agree with the above NFHS citation? Or are you saying that the FED citation is wrong?

I agree 100% with this. I feel if the hand checks philosophy is being called on the perimeter players, then we need to also send a message to clean up the post play as well.

If the "offender" is backing down the defender with enough force that the defender has to brace to maintain position, then I would consider an offensive foul here. Someone already said that the defender should not have to use their forearm to brace from a offender in the post. I agree withthat as well.

Smoke

Agree...it's probably about the same as using "screening" or "guarding" principles. We allow screeners to get their arms in front of their bodies to protect themselves, and we allow defenders guarding opponents to brace themselves for a charge. Then we call the contact by who initiates it. If the defender is passive, legal and not proactive with their arms, there's nothing to be called on them imo.

Is this the FED citation in it's entirety? I got it off the Iowa referee's website, so it may have been edited for their use:

This seems to allow contact with the forearm except when used to gain advantage. In number 2, when they say "forearms ..." they are referring to a rough forearm movement.

The context here is elimination of rough contact, not simple contact.

1) Yes, that's the complete citation with regards to use of a forearm.

2) No, it does <b>NOT</b> allow contact of any kind with a forearm. They are not referring to rough forearm movement; they are referring to <b>any</b> forearm movement. The FED regards simple forearm contact as being a foul- every time- and that's exactly what that POE is saying..

In essence it says:
When you "forearm" someone, you are striking them with your forearm, not merely placing your forearm on them. Placing your forearm on someone is incidental contact.

Jim, you're fighting a losing battle here. The FED does not want the arm-bar in HS games, period. It doesn't matter if it's extending the forearm or holding position. No arm-bars. Honest.

What Chuck said....

Credit To ChuckElias And Other Official Forum Members
 

ChuckElias: Sorry that I did not give credit where credit is deserved, but I have learned so much from this Forum, and have incorporated what I have learned into my officiating over the past few years, that I have lost track of who or where I got originally got the ideas from.

For the information of all Forum members, here is my pregame conference outline. Thanks to all Forum members whose ideas have been incorporated into this:

PREGAME CONFERENCE

Court Coverage

Trail’s Primary Responsibilities:
Sideline And Division Line
Last Second Shot
Drives Starting In Primary
Bring Subs In
Weak Side Rebound Coverage

Lead’s Primary Responsibilities:
Endline And Sideline
Post Play
Illegal Screens At Elbows

Stay In Your Primary, It Must Be Obvious To Come Out Of Your Primary

Coaches And Captains
- Players properly equipped.
- Players wear uniforms properly.
- Practice good sportsmanship.

Double Whistles
- Let’s both hold our preliminary signal and not give a block or player control signal.
- Make eye contact with each other.
- Give the call to whoever has the primary coverage, unless you definitely have something different that happened first.
- Opposite signals: Assess both fouls. Count the basket if the ball was released before the contact. Resume with the Point of Interruption.

Pass And Crash
- Let’s have the Lead official follow the pass, stay with the ball.
- The Trail will be responsible for the crash.

Out-Of-Bounds Help
- If I have no idea and I look to you for help, just give a directional signal. No need to come to me. Just point.
- If I signal but I get it wrong, then blow the whistle and come to me. Tell me what you saw and let me decide if I’m going to change it.

Press Coverage
- Help each other. New Lead will wait at midcourt.

Technical Fouls
- If I T a coach, get me away from the coach. The situation is heated and I don’t want to whack the coach back-to-back. Let’s move away from the benches. Non calling official should inform the coach that the coaching box privilege has been lost.
- Let’s get together and make sure we administer the penalty or penalties correctly and in the correct order and at the correct basket.
- If one official issues a warning to somebody (player or coach), make sure the other official knows. If I’ve already warned the coach, the coach shouldn’t get a free shot at you.

Two-Point / Three-Point Shot
- If one official incorrectly signals the number of points, the other official will simply blow the whistle immediately, discuss the play with our partner, come to a decision, signal the correct number of points to the table, and resume the game. We will only correct if we are 100% sure.

Goaltending And Basket Interference
- 99% of the time, the Trail will be responsible for the call.
- Lead can help out on a quick shot in transition, when Trail hasn’t made it into the frontcourt yet.
- Let’s remember that it’s never basket interference or goaltending to slap the backboard. Coaches and fans always want it, but we can’t award the points.

Last Shot
- 99% of the time, the Trail will be responsible for the call.
- Let’s both have an opinion, in case Trail’s not sure.
- How will we handle a full-court pass when the Trail is stuck in the backcourt?

Foul Mechanics
- Preliminary signal given at spot of foul for all common fouls.
- Calling official must designate throwin spot or number of shots.
- Noncalling official, get the shooter. If the ball enters the basket, inform partner that ball went in.

Throw Ins
- Ten players, eye contact, check table, check clock.

Timeout Mechanics
- When the ball is dead, we must be alive.
- Team calling timeout must have player dribbling or holding the ball.
- Both officials must know the game situation when play resumes following a timeout (team, direction, spot or run baseline, shooter, number of shots).
- One official at spot of throwin or free throw line with ball facing direction in which it will be put into play. Other official at division line, quarter for 30 second and three quarters for 60 second.

Post Play
- Let’s not allow a defender to use a forearm on a player with the ball.
- Let’s not allow a defender to use a leg or knee to move a player off the block.
- Let’s make sure the offensive player isn’t holding off the defender, or holding him with his off-hand.
- As Lead, let’s find the post matchup as soon as possible so that we get the first foul.
- Remember the RIDD’s. Don’t let players: Redirect, Impede, Displace, or Dislodge.

Ball-Handler / Hand-Checking
- Two hands on the ball-handler is a foul. Automatic.
- One hand that stays on the dribbler is a foul.
- Let’s not let a defender ride the dribbler as the ball is coming from backcourt to frontcourt.
- Remember SBQ. If the dribbler’s Speed, Balance, or Quickness are affected, we should have a hand-checking foul.

Screens
- We must work hard off the ball.
- In the first half especially, let’s clean up the screening action. The screening action will be right in front of the defensive coach in the first half, so if the coach sees an illegal screen, we should too.
- In the second half, with the defensive coach 60 feet away, let’s be aware of the screening, but we don’t need to focus quite as hard on it. If there’s an obvious call to be made, let’s absolutely make it; but we won’t make it our “point of emphasis” in the second half.

Consistency
- Let’s see if we can call the same game. Be consistent with each other.
- Let’s try to remember what we’ve called earlier in the game, and what we haven’t called. Be consistent with what has already happened in the game.
- If I have a very close block/charge play and I call a blocking foul, then the next time you have a similar block/charge play, you should have a blocking foul.

Game Situation Awareness
- One of us should quickly check the clock after every whistle to make sure the clock stops properly.
- One of us should check the clock every time it should start to make sure it does so.
- Let’s try to be aware of the foul count during the game. We don’t want to be surprised when it’s time to shoot the bonus. If we know that the next foul will result in bonus free throws, we’ll be more likely to remember our shooter.

Last Two Minutes
- We’re not calling anything in the last two minutes if we haven’t already called it earlier in the game, unless it’s so blatant that it can’t be ignored. We don’t want our first illegal screen to be called with 30 seconds left in the game; but if the illegal screen puts a player into the first row of the bleachers, then we have to call it.
- Let’s not put the whistles away in the last two minutes: That wouldn’t be consistent with the way we’ve been calling the game. If the game dictates it, let the players win or lose the game at the line. We don’t want to be the ones who decide the game by ignoring obvious fouls just to get the game over.
- End of game strategic fouls: If the winning team is just holding the ball and is willing to take the free throws, then let’s call the foul immediately, so the ballhandler doesn’t get hit harder to draw a whistle. Let’s make sure there is a play on the ball by the defense. If there’s no play on the ball, if the defense grabs the jersey from behind, or if the ballhandler receives a bear hug, we should consider an intentional foul. These are not basketball plays and should be penalized as intentional.

2006-07 Rule Changes:
- Changed the guidelines for headbands and sweatbands.
- Added that a school logo/mascot is also permitted on the pants, compression shorts, sweatbands and headbands.
- The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock when a timer’s mistake has occurred.
- A fourth delay situation was added for water on the court following any time-out.
- Changed the procedure for delay warnings to only one warning for any of four delay situations (previously three).
- Established a new signal for a team-control foul. The arm is extended and the fist is punched.
- Clarified that a player who has any amount of blood on his/her uniform shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected.
- Clarified that a closely guarded count is terminated when an offensive player in control of the ball gets his/her head and shoulders past a defensive player.
- Clarified that an unsporting foul can be a noncontact technical foul which involves behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.
- Clarified that a player is one of five team members who are legally in the game at any given time except intermission and that during an intermission, all team members are bench personnel.
- Clarified that during a 30-second time-out, no on-court entertainment should occur.

2006-07 Points Of Emphasis:
- Concussions
- Uniforms
- Time-outs
- Intentional Fouls
- Rule Enforcement/Proper Signal Use

Connecticut Mechanics:
- Arms extended not closely guarded signal.
- Point to floor for two point field goal try.
- No long switches when foul is called in the backcourt and there is no change of possession or direction.
- Team members are not allowed to congregate at midcourt during introductions.

Well, nice list to read while you're getting dressed & stretching.

But don't tell me you discuss all this stuff in mid February before going out to work the big game in front of a gym packed with people who hate each other. Or with partners you already know and trust. Rule changes after working them during scrimmages then Nov, Dec & Jan?

What about:
Team rivalries? Team tendencies? Past experience with either or both teams? Individual player and coach emotional makeup? Unusual plays you've been bitten by? Plays you're having trouble with? Maybe your partner's having a family problem and you need to buck him up for the next hour and a half? Maybe you got yer azz chewed by the boss at work today? Got a speeding ticket on the way to the game? That's what I want to hear. Reading thru a canned list of stuff isn't exactly what gets me prepared for a game.

Anyways, thanks for putting in the effort to type this. In particular I don't agree with the 3 I've left here.

Dan, what's wrong with the pass/crash guideline? That's how I handle it (since it's essentially my pre-game -- which I stole from Art McDonald :) ).

I agree with you about changing the 3pt/2pt. No need to meet and discuss. I know JR disagrees with us about that.

If you see a foot on the line on a 3pt/2pt in the trouble area I like to just blow the whistle let the table know a foot was on the line and put the ball back in play.

Pass and Crash, we can handle this different ways, we just need to make sure we don't have two/three guys watching the ball and missing a huge crash.

So Chuck, do you really go through all that stuff in every pre-game? I agree with Dan that it's too much and too detailed, and it leaves out some really important stuff, like how the partner(s) is feeling, and whether everyone has mastered the rule changes for this year.

"If a player contacts an opponent with a forearm, it is always a foul".

How hard is that to write?

It doesn't say that.

NFHS, please hire a writer. Or at least an English Major. Maybe you could pay Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy to edit this stuff before sending it out?

I have no argument with what you and Jurassic are saying the interpretation should be. Just that the citation doesn't support it, IMHO.

If the 3 was shot in <b>my</b> primary?

I'd smack you silly if you pulled that one!

No, never. Every pre-game is going to be different for me, although I know that some people have a checklist that they go through every time.

The pre-game always begins one of two ways. If I haven't worked with the person very often, I start with "Have you had either of these teams before?" This lets the other person share whatever insight s/he has about style of play, talented players, etc. If I know the person pretty well and we've worked together, I usually ask, "How was Coach A last time you had him?" This again gets my partner to share some insight into what we might expect tonight.

Then we can move into (1) Coverage, (2) Contact, and (3) Game Management issues. And not all them always need to be discussed. For a guy that I've worked with 100 times, we don't need to talk about coverage. But we still need to talk about how we handle post play (even tho we both pretty much know already), and how we'll handle table screw-ups Coach A's blow-ups, etc.

For me, any list (even one that I wrote) is just a guide for the night's conversation.

If I was certain that you missed it, yup.

Yeah, right. Like you could catch me. :p

Well, that makes more sense. I've never understood why go through the whole list as in the Official's Manual.

Let me change the scenario slightly then......

I would rip off the arm that you signalled the 2 with and then I would club you over the head with the wet end, followed by ripping off your flattened head and crapping down your neck.

Iow, I beg to differ.

Which also begs the obvious follow-up question.....

What would you do if I changed your changed call back to a 3, without conferring with you also, because I was 110% positive that I had it right all along?

I know he's already silly, so it wouldn't change anything. But just curious as to why that's a big deal? Isn't the same as changing an OOB call if one of your partners sees a tip you didn't, for example?

:eek: Are you serious?

Um, have you read NFHS rule 2-6 lately?

You'd change an OOB call that your partner made on his line without discussing it with him first?

I'd smack you sillier too if you ever tried that....and I know where you live.:eek:

Oh don't get him started. No. On an OOB, you get together and offer the information, then the calling official decides whether to change the call.

But I'm suggesting that when it's a blown 2pt/3pt call, that we don't confer. Since I know you blew it, I'll just tell the table it's a 2 and we move on. He hates that. So when I work with him, I won't do it. But it's what we do around here.

Errr...say what?

Either the shooter's foot was on the line or it wasn't. It's black and white, no uncertainty. The rule is clear, either he's on or within the line or he's not. If you come to me to ask "did you see his foot on the line?" what am I going to say? "Of course I did but I'm giving him 3 anyways". Or maybe "No I didn't, and neither did you, you lying sack of sh1t." No need to confer, just fix it and move on.

This differs when you come to me to give help on an OOB.

"Did you see the ball tip off white's hand?"
"Yes I did. Did you then see the ball tip off blue's knee right after that?"

There's far less certainty.

BTW Chuck, on a pass/crash I prefer to let the person who's primary it is stay with the crash and the off-official go with the pass.

So......iow <b>you</b> just unilaterally decide when you should discuss changing a call with your partner and when <b>you</b> should just go ahead and over-rule your partner with bothering to talk to him? Is that pretty much the gist of it?

Helluva mechanic.......

I know this is the rulebook was to do it, but my preference is to have whoever's with the ball stay with the ball, and whoever was already seeing the defender stay on the crash.

Or is that what you said?

No, we multilaterally agree that this is how we'll handle the situation as a team. And we're going to trust each other to use the mechanic only when it's obvious that we've missed the original call.

Don't worry, Grumpy. We won't do it that way when we work together.

We do it the same way around here. Sometimes a T or C is in a bad position to see if it's a 3 or a 2. (quick crosscourt pass and the T or C ends up behind the shooter). It's their primary so they take an educated "guess." (I could sugarcoat it, but it's a guess in that case).

The other outside official has a clear view and sees that it was obviously missed. We trust each other and help out in that case. No discussion necessary. Quick whistle and signal the correct number of points. We got it right and we move on.

No.

We discuss it at pregame and bilaterally or trilaterally decide that's the way we're doing it.

Err....say what?

I certainly agree with the highlighted statements.

But....where does it say that if I'm 110% sure that the shooter's foot wasn't on the line and the call was in <b>my</b> primary, that you can just go ahead and over-rule me and say the foot was on the line?

If anybody ever tried to pre-game that one with me, I'd tell 'em to go find another partner. Homey don't play dat game!

:D

Chuck, I agree with you. I'm not sure how it is where he lives, but where I live it's the same as where you live. (Huh?) There is no discussion on a 3 pt. vs. 2-pt. shot - if my partner sees something that I didn't and changes my call, I will either thank them later, or I'll do the arm-beating, bloody-stump thing. But it will be a very rare occurance, and will most likely happen close to those "gray areas" of coverage. If I'm at C watching a shot from the corner, and my partner at L changes my call, I will do JR's suggestion, even if my partner was right, because they were looking well out of their area.

However, I will disagree with you and Dan slightly on the OOB call - I tell my partners to <B>not</B> ask me a question, but to come up and give me information. Don't ask me if I happened to see the ball go off white's noggin', because if I did I wouldn't be giving the ball back to white on the throw-in, now would I? Come and tell me the ball bounced off white's head, and I will be the one to decide to change my call, or keep it the same because I saw it bounced off blue's foot after it hit white's head.

However, if I do happen to work with old farts with way more experience than me, I will do it their way as well. That's what pre-games are for, right?

JR is never going to agree with Dan and me on this. How do I know? B/c we already hashed it to death here: http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=15859

I'm going to excuse myself from this thread now. . .

Large, heavy bags await...

Would you do the same thing if the T or C was in a <b>great</b> position to see the play in his primary? Right on top of it iow? No guess at all...110% sure that they got it right in the first place? Are you still gonna change the call without discussing it first? What if the T or C doesn't want to change their call?

Yabut...what if one of the two or three at Yalta unilaterally decides that he ain't gonna do it that way? What if the conscientious objector wants to do it the "book" way instead?

Who wins?

No, you wouldn't do the samething if the T or C was in a great position to see it because they would have got it right.

You also wouldn't do it if it was real close. You do it if it's obvious that the other official was in a bad position to see it and obviously missed it.

It's about trust too. I know that if my other official changed it, they saw that I was in a tough spot and they had a great look at it. So there is never a reason to discuss this one.

That's it exactly - trust works both ways. Your partner trusts you to call your area, but you also trust your partner to come help you out if you get a call like this obviously wrong.

JR, you bring up the possibilty that two officials might disagree on the call, but couldn't that happen in other situations as well? It wouldn't be limited to just this 3-pt. vs. 2-pt. call, so if that were to happen it should be handled the same as any other disagreement.

Again, something to cover in pre-game.

Usually the winner is the team that accumulates more points.

In this particular case the winner might actually be the team that accumulates fewer points if you're boneheaded enough to insist on giving 3 points when only 2 are deserved.

And if the procedure is to not huddle on these plays then the loser is definitely the guy who decides to arbitrarily change the process in mid game. You should turn your cell phone off on the drive home 'cause I bet you're gonna get a call from the boss.

BTW, pretty cool that in the 2 years snce this thread first appeared you haven't changed your position a bit. You were a bonehead back then and you're still a bonehead today.

:cool:

Do we have to go through this again? Either JR's area handles this play differently than other areas, or JR handles it differently than others. Arguing it here isn't going to change any of that (I know, because it's been tried.)

So, I'd suggest we just A2D and STFU.

Yep, it says right there in the forum FAQ that each subject is only allowed to be argued once.

:rolleyes:

btw...a2d? analog to digital? attention to detail?

(I think I got the STFU part)

Chuck, are you a ball watcher then?

Agree to digress. We do that a lot.

Since Chuck said he was done, I might have to answer that for him.

I know in my case it's not an issue of ball-watching. It's an issue of watching your area, but being aware of everything. You could have a shot go up in the gray area between coverage areas. If there's a drive from T, how do you handle pass/crash plays if there's only one set of eyes on it?

There's a fine line between ball-watching and being aware of everything, but there is a difference.

That is not what Chuck wrote: Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Time
If the 3 was shot in my primary?

If I was certain that you missed it, yup.

How is Chuck certain you missed a call in your primary if he is not ball watching? Gray (Trouble) Area or on a fast break I have no problem with this.

Arm Bar:

If there is displacement and an advantage has been gained I will call a foul, if not, a no-call!

Ok, I won't answer for Chuck, I'll just keep it to me.

In most cases, I won't be sure becuase there's probably enough stuff going on in my area to watch. Maybe I'm C and there's no one in my area. Maybe it's a transition. Maybe the dribble started in my area and I'm continuing a 5-sec. count when the shot goes up in my partner's area. But, if I happen to see it, and I'm 100% sure, I'm not going to keep quiet about it just because it's not my area. I'm going to help my partner get the call right.

I agree with every situation you have here.

I said I was excusing myself from the thread, but what the hay. . .

Suppose I am. Are you saying that I should intentionally fail to correct an obvious error simply b/c I'm not "supposed" to be looking at it?

Or are you saying that as the C, you never help out on a 2/3 point attempt near the top of the circle, even if it's in the T's primary?

Or are you saying that you should be so focused on your one matchup in the C that you disregard the rest of the court?

Or are you saying that it's not possible to have a good look at another area of the court while "looking through" that matchup?

Or are you simply saying that you think I'm an elitist prick? ;)

There are lots of 3-pointers in the gray area. There are lots of screens above the 3-point line where the C has to help with the arriving screener so he is looking into the T's area.

If you look at past discussions about "getting the play right," I am one who does not agree with the "get the play right" philosophy when it means that officials are not taking care of their own primary coverage areas.

However, there are times when we see through our own area and get a great look. There are also many times when the T's primary area is the C's secondary area (and vice versa). There are also times when the C has nothing in his area and the T's area is full of players and it's obvious that the T needs help.

I am saying that you are very funny!

We can come up with this and that and this and that all day, we just need to make sure that we are covering our primary areas first. I am not saying we shouldn't help out our partners and get the call right. I am saying if this happens a lot I am going to ask the question "what are you doing looking in my area all the time when you have you own area to watch?" Trust your partner and work the system.

Partners of higher pedigree than my own (meaning when I work JuCo games with NCAA experienced officials), have always pre-gamed that if we see a foot on a line (100% surety) to just give the "2" signal to the table and to our partners. No need to stop the game with a whistle.

Personally, I'm only changing it if it is in transition and I know I had a better view than the "primary" or a "top of the key" situation where I'm 'T' or 'C' and from my angle I see a foot blatantly on the line.

Definitely not a call I go looking for and definitely a situation the Crew Chief needs to pre-game as to how he/she wants the crew to handle it.

Suppose I am. Are you saying that I should intentionally fail to correct an obvious error simply b/c I'm not "supposed" to be looking at it?
***Never, but why are you looking there?

Or are you saying that as the C, you never help out on a 2/3 point attempt near the top of the circle, even if it's in the T's primary?
***If I am a supervisor I would ask why do we have 2 pair of eyes on a 3 point attempt!

Or are you saying that you should be so focused on your one matchup in the C that you disregard the rest of the court?
***The rest of the court has two other officials working it, trust your partners.

Or are you saying that it's not possible to have a good look at another area of the court while "looking through" that matchup?
***That "looking through" gives you a 100% look to see if your partner missed a foot on the line?

Or are you simply saying that you think I'm an elitist prick? ;)[/QUOTE]
***Are you?

You understand that it was a two and your partners may understand but does the table crew understand. Odds are they will buzz the horn and ask if it was a two or a three anyways!

In HS and JuCo, never had a table that didn't understand what was meant when an official ran by signaling "2". But just in case, guess that I should add that to my pre-game with the table crews.

My supervisor wants us to stop the play and signal 2 to the table.

Who knows? Maybe all 10 players are on the opposite side of the court. It happens. Maybe I'm having a brain cramp. Maybe I'm keeping an eye on a couple of troublemakers and they're on a coverage boundary. There are several reasons that I could be looking there; some good ones and some not good ones. The point of the previous discussion is merely that you saw it.

Honestly, I don't think a college supervisor would ask that.

As I already pointed out, there are legitimate reasons for expanding your coverage area.

Possibly. Are you saying you can't be sure of anything you see beyond the matchup you're watching? :confused:

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I'm not elitist.

Well then, that makes that portion of the pre-game easy.

Crew-chief: "On plays where we change a 3 to a 2, stop the play with a whistle and signal "2" to the table"

U1: "OK"

U2: "No problem boss, that how's my friend Jurassic likes it handled also" :)

I think the way our friend Jurassic wants it handled is you toot the whistle & everybody huddles to decide who's lying eyes to believe and if you're lucky he won't go "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" on you because he thinks his lying eyes are better than your lying eyes.

I agree hit the whistle to get the table's attention, but this shouldn't stop play all that much because normally it should all be said & done before the next throw-in starts.

Unless we do it Jurassic's way and then it's gonna look like the nightly news report from Bahgdad.

You're doing a whole bunch of assuming, aren't you?

I work for several different college supervisors, and have NEVER been asked that question in relation to fixing a 3/2 point shot...their concern is always that we - as a crew - get the call right.

And Chuck, I believe we've already established that you are definitely NOT elitist.

Gee, somehow I can kinda agree with them too.

Do they really care <b>how</b> you get the call right?:confused:

Well, I do assume you read the things you type:

Some people need to actually read the CCA Mechanics books. The center of the court is considered a dual area for 3 point shots. At least that is the way it is on the Men's side. So yes, two officials might rule on a 3 point attempt.

Also the way JR wants a dispute to be handled on shots that are either 2 or 3 point shots is totally against every way I have been told to handle those conflicts. In every college camp I have attended (and HS camp as well) over the past few years. We have been taught to just correct it without a conference. You also only correct a shot when you are 100% sure you have something different. If you are not sure, you leave it alone.

Peace

In fact you're more likely to hear "HOW COME NO ONE CAUGHT THAT??!!!!" errrr...is "tall" an alternate meaning for elitist?

Not particularly - speaking of this particular play, anyway. My main supervisor has stated repeatedly "Just fix it and keep the damn game going."

I want it both ways.
 

In my experience these things have happened to me:

1. Partner wasn't sure and looked to me.
2. Partner neither signaled 'three', nor signaled 'close two'.

In those instances, I do not need to have a discussion with partner. I can simply signal my partner, or I can tell the table that "The last shot was a three."
There is no reason for anything else.

If it ever happens that my partner signals (two or three) points, the number of which I definitively disagree, then I would feel remiss if I did not blow the whistle and ask my partner to rethink his call. This is why:

• My whistle, shortly after my partner's signal, should closely correspond with the timing of the reaction (of the fans, players and coaches). With the dead ball and a quick chat, I have just enabled my partner (and crew) avoid an *Owee*.

More often than not (my games), it is has been pre-gamed that if one partner goes to another partner for "anything", then a call will be changed (for good or bad) because there will be no lenghty discussion out on the floor. It is the singular responsibilty of the partner (who suggests the change) to be right.

I have had instances when a partner (who is listening to a coach or fans) has stopped a game and told me that "they" (coaches, fans) thought differently. That really irks me, but other than that it changes nothing, except for noting the trust that my partner has for me.

mick

<i>"Now you're starting to <b>really</b> piss me off!"</i>
-Leatherneck

"Franklin Hardesty"

Took me a few Google clicks, but I found it. A propos. :)

I disagree with this idea, because handchecking or putting a forearm on the perimeter causes for a less free flowing game and the players are facing each other instead of one facing the opponent and the other facing away from the basket. When there is a player with his/her back to the basket, it is very hard for a defender to have a chance to play defense in the post without being able to have a forearm on them to feel them out and give them a chance to hold their position with the offensive player in a back down position. This is different from perimeter forearm in that 9 times out of 10 a perimeter forearm causes for a reroute or an impede of progress to the basket, whereas a forearm in the post if used correctly and legally, in my terms, is used to maintain and feel the player and for those reasons alone.

I disagree with this, personally. Why should a guy in the post be able to "feel them out", but the guy on the perimeter is not allowed to do the same? Post defense should be played the same way as perimeter defense -- with the feet! Get your body between your man and the basket and make him go a different direction. There's no provision in HS ball for "getting a feel" for an opponent. In fact, the FED expressly states that "tagging up" to find the offensive player is a foul. Of course it's harder to play defense without using your forearm; but it's supposed to be! The fact that it's easier to use the forearm doesn't mean that it's ok to use it.

I personally think that the forearm is used to reroute or impede in the post VERY often. Very few players have a forearm on the offensive player simply for feel. They are trying to move a guy off a spot or keep him from getting to a spot. Most of the time, not all the time, obviously.

And again, in HS ball, it's simply not allowed to use the hands or forearms to get a feel for the opponent. I don't think that's just my opinion, either. I'm pretty sure that's the FED directive. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Even though I'm retired, I still do commercials for Stihl.