Backcourt violation?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

icallfouls and BkrBallRef seem to think this this post has turned into a contest about who noted the NFHS errors and contacted the NFHS first to get the errors corrected.

Contest? LOL! Hey, I wasn't the one to make such a bold, braggart statement, that obviously had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. If you don't think your statements will be challenged on this site, you're in for a rude awakening partner.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Jurassic Referee:

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules states "it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation". This can be found on page 10 of the 2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Book. No where in this section does it state that this only applies to fouls. No where in this section does it state that this does not apply to violations. In fact, the word "foul" and the word "violation", do not even appear in this section.

Our Board teaches us to apply all the NFHS rules, in an intelligent manner, knowing the intent and purpose of the rules, and the principle of advantage and disadvantage, to each play situation.

Please "make the call" in each of these play situations:

1) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. In this hotly contested game, Team B has pressed after each score, creating several turnovers by Team A. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 clearly steps over the line, onto the court, by at least one inch, before passing the ball to a player A-2. "You make the call".

2) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. Team B is ahead by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter and all five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt in a 2-1-2 zone defense. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 slightly steps over the line, onto the court, by about one-half of one inch, before passing the ball to player A-2. "You make the call".

3) Team A players, in their own frontcourt, are passing and dribbling the ball around the three point line, setting up their offense. Post player A-5, Team A's top scorer in the game, is standing down low on the block, trying to seal off player B-5. Post player A-5 backs into the lane so that two inches of his sneaker is in the lane. Due to aggressive defense, Team A is having difficulty getting the ball to player A-5, who is in the lane for more than three seconds. "You make the call".

4) Team A players, in their own frontcourt, are passing and dribbling the ball around the three point line, setting up their offense. Post player A-5 is standing near the elbow, with her back to the basket. About one-half of one inch of the back of one of her sneakers is on the free throw line. The other four players on Team A are not attempting to get the ball to player A-5, but seem to be trying to set up an open outside shot. Player A-5 maintains this position for more than three seconds. "You make the call".

5) Point guard A-1, dribbling near the top of the key is aggressively guarded by player B-1. Using a hesitiation move, the ball comes to rest for a moment in A-1's left hand, before she makes a cross-over dribble to her right and dribbles past player B-1 for an easy layup. "You make the call".

6) Backup point guard A-1, with Team A behind by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter, is dribbling the ball in his backcourt. All five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt, playing a 2-1-2 zone defense. Team A's coach calls out a play to A-1, who while looking at his coach, has the ball come to rest for a moment in his right hand before continuing to dribble with his right hand. "You make the call".

Members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules, and the principle of advantage and disadvantage, to make the following calls:

1) Throwin violation.
2) No violation.
3) Three second violation.
4) No violation (or communicate to A-5 to get out of the lane).
5) Carrying (palming) violation (double dribble, travelling).
6) No violation.

Jurassic Referee, please make your call on each of these six play situations. After you do that, please, once and for all, show me, if possible, in writing, where it states that The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules, including the principle of advantage and disadvantage, only applies to fouls and never applies to violations. Then we can compare what is written on page ten of the 2005-06 NFHS Rules book to your written documentation.

By the way, it would not bother me at all if you could prove your point. It would give me the proper background for my new Board #6 committee assignment this season, the New Member Training Committee. I would have no problem admitting that our Board #6 application of The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules, including the principle of advantage and disadvantage, has been wrong, if you can back up your application of this principle with something other than your personal opinion. After following your posts on this Forum for the past two years, I can tell that you are very knowledgeable about the rules, and I am tempted to side with your opinion, but I would like further documentation.

No, I understand completely the Board 6 Way, Billy. It's quite easy from your highlighted statements above. I certainly don't need to go through any of your exercises above again. We've been through it before. We just completely disagree philosophically, and we always will.

Board 6 teaches their officials that you only call violations when you think it should be a violation.....and that applies to ALL violations. A player travels; a Board 6 member has to decide whether to call it or not. A player with the ball steps OOB; a Board 6 member has to decide whether to call it or not. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera for ALL violations!

Well....good luck to you and Board 6, Billy. Imo, that's just completely freaking ridiculous...... and kinda sad too,. But whatinthehell do I know anyway? I'm not a Board 6 member.

Btw, Billy, if you're gonna post your Most Misunderstood Rules again, would you please attribute the names of all of the officials who corrected your misunderstanding of those rules when you first posted them, and then helped re-write those misunderstood rules for you? You should give credit where credit is due, you know.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Bill McKernan
International Association of Approved Basketball Officials
Central Connecticut Board #6
"One Rule Plus One Mechanic Plus One Interpretation Equals The Board # 6 Way"



Based on the "one rule...blah blah blah = the board 6 way" there is no way you can have anything other than violations on the plays you referenced. If you don't call it that way every time, you have more than one interpretation of the rules. All hail CCB6

Agree completely....and that's exactly where I find the Board 6 Way patently and personally ridiculous.

[rainmaker]

Let me be sure I understand this thread. The NFHS has changed a couple of things, for reasons we're not sure of, without announcing the changes. One of them is whether a player standing inbounds but touching someone besides a player oob -- whether that player is oob. It looks as though the change was in the case play, not the rule book? It might have just been a clarification? The other item that got changed without announcement was the deletion of the "line-up check" from the rule book?

So we're arguing about this in order to assert (a) WHO provoked these changes, or (b) WHO noticed them first, or (c) WHO is or is not right about whether the NFHS is wrong sometimes when they decide to change something that one of you may or may not have gbeen the first to notify of who noticed the changes first....

Y'all have way, way too much time on your hands. You should have spent the afternoon transcribing T.O.'s paranoid rantings for those of our readers who can't read lips.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Let me be sure I understand this thread.

Obviously, you don't.

As for "TO," if I gave a fat rat's butt about him, then you could definitely say that I have too much time on my hands. He's an idiot, of the first order.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Let me be sure I understand this thread. The NFHS has changed a couple of things, for reasons we're not sure of, without announcing the changes. One of them is whether a player standing inbounds but touching someone besides a player oob -- whether that player is oob. It looks as though the change was in the case play, not the rule book? It might have just been a clarification? The other item that got changed without announcement was the deletion of the "line-up check" from the rule book?

So we're arguing about this in order to assert (a) WHO provoked these changes, or (b) WHO noticed them first, or (c) WHO is or is not right about whether the NFHS is wrong sometimes when they decide to change something that one of you may or may not have gbeen the first to notify of who noticed the changes first....

Y'all have way, way too much time on your hands. You should have spent the afternoon transcribing T.O.'s paranoid rantings for those of our readers who can't read lips.

He said, "you're f****** kidding me" or "that's the Board 6 way"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Please "make the call" in each of these play situations:

1) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. In this hotly contested game, Team B has pressed after each score, creating several turnovers by Team A. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 clearly steps over the line, onto the court, by at least one inch, before passing the ball to a player A-2. "You make the call".

2) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. Team B is ahead by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter and all five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt in a 2-1-2 zone defense. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 slightly steps over the line, onto the court, by about one-half of one inch, before passing the ball to player A-2. "You make the call".

Bill - without getting into the "Board 6" debate, where do you draw the line between these two plays? I fall into the category of saying both plays are a violation, by rule. How do you explain to a coach why play 1 is a violation, but play 2 isn't, considering it's the same line, same foot, same inch? If you teach that play 2 is not a violation, at what point does it become one? What if it's a 10-point game instead of a 20-point game? What if it's a 20-game late in the third quarter instead of the fourth? What if there are 2 defenders in the backcourt? And so on...

Granted, realistically, I probably won't see the violation in play 2, because my focus won't be on the throw-in player like it would be in a close game with pressure. And if I was asked why the violation wasn't called, I would say it was because I didn't see it, not because I did see it and decided not to call it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

He said,...or "that's the Board 6 way"

LOL!! that's too short...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Bill - without getting into the "Board 6" debate, where do you draw the line between these two plays? I fall into the category of saying both plays are a violation, by rule.

M, the NFHS rulesmakers have been very definitive on this specific play.

CASEBOOK PLAY 9.2.5 SITUATION:
Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.
RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertant, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

Iow BillyMac has stated above that "members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules and the principles of advantage and disadvantage" to make a call that is completely opposite to the way that the NFHS rulesmakers have very plainly written what the intent and purpose of the rule is and exactly how the play should be called. Now....one of those parties has to be wrong. And, when in doubt, I think that I'll choose the Case Book over the Board #6 Way.

Btw, for the life of me, I just can't imagine newer officials trying to apply these advantage/disadvantage concepts on violations when they're still trying to figure out whether something is or isn't a violation in the first place. Can you imagine the thought process for a newbie?- "Whoa, that looks like it might be a palm. Now....should I call it or not?"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

M, the NFHS rulesmakers have been very definitive on this specific play.

I know. In almost all instances you can never go wrong by applying a rule as written. But there is a part of me that does agree with their thinking, although I would probably not draw the line the same place they do. I've given my example in the past on a summer camp game where one of the teams is a school for the deaf, and they are down by 30 or 40 late in the second half. One of their subs happens to get fouled, and misses everything on the first attempt. On the second shot, she clearly steps/falls over the line on the attempt, and it happens to go in. I was C, and had coverage on the shooter. Something in me said to ignore the obvious violation and let it go. The player was happy she made the shot, both coaches smiled, and after the game the clinicians said they were glad I didn't blow it dead. Obvious violation, but it did fall somewhat into an advantage/disadvantage situation. Would I ignore it in a regular game? Absolutely not. But somehow it felt right in that particular situation.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, for the life of me, I just can't imagine newer officials trying to apply these advantage/disadvantage concepts on violations when they're still trying to figure out whether something is or isn't a violation in the first place. Can you imagine the thought process for a newbie?- "Whoa, that looks like it might be a palm. Now....should I call it or not?"

I agree with you here as well. When you're learning, you can never go wrong with following the rules. We also know we don't want to be "Rule Book Ronnies", and we don't go looking for the proverbial "snot at the end of someone's nose". So that's why I asked Bill where their association draws the advantage/disadvantage line in this teaching this play. I'm trying to find out where that line is, that is, if the line exists at all. Maybe it's just something that comes with experience.

[ChuckElias]

Well, I started this thread and it has somehow morphed into something very different from what I asked about. In any case, let me say a couple things.

1) Pete Palermino is an excellent official at the D1 level. He's also a very humble person, never bragging about his accomplishments. Most of you will never know him, obviously, but if you get the chance, he's worth listening to.

2) I've been instructed at camps by more than one D1 official (working in conferences that I'd like to be in) to call the throw-in violation, regardless of pressure and/or score. Why? Video.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Well, I started this thread and it has somehow morphed into something very different from what I asked about.

Huh. That's the first time that's happened......today.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

2) I've been instructed at camps by more than one D1 official (working in conferences that I'd like to be in) to call the throw-in violation, regardless of pressure and/or score. Why? Video.

Good point.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Well, I started this thread and it has somehow morphed into something very different from what I asked about. In any case, let me say a couple things.

1) Pete Palermino is an excellent official at the D1 level. He's also a very humble person, never bragging about his accomplishments. Most of you will never know him, obviously, but if you get the chance, he's worth listening to.

Well, you left one thing out of your response. Chuck, you are an IAABO Board Interpreter also, same as Mr. Palermino. What are your thoughts on the Board #6 Way as apparently taught by Mr. Palermino- i.e. that all violations should be called by advantage/disadvantage? Agree? Disagree?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, you left one thing out of your response. Chuck, you are an IAABO Board Interpreter also, same as Mr. Palermino. What are your thoughts on the Board #6 Way as apparently taught by Mr. Palermino- i.e. that all violations should be called by advantage/disadvantage? Agree? Disagree?

1) I don't really know if BillyMac's description of "the Board 6 way" is accurate.

2) I don't know if Pete really does advocate BillyMac's description of the Board 6 way. I would not presume to speak for him, particularly on an intenet forum.

3) I would not agree that ALL violations should be judged on advantage/disadvantage. (For example, line violations such as OOB.)

4) I would agree that SOME violations should be judged on advantage/disadvantage. (For example, palming/carrying.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

1) I don't really know if BillyMac's description of "the Board 6 way" is accurate.

2) I don't know if Pete really does advocate BillyMac's description of the Board 6 way. I would not presume to speak for him, particularly on an intenet forum.

3) I would not agree that ALL violations should be judged on advantage/disadvantage. (For example, line violations such as OOB.)

4) I would agree that SOME violations should be judged on advantage/disadvantage. (For example, palming/carrying.)

I won't comment on #1 or #2 either because of a lack of any kind of actual knowledge.

(3)- You and I agree on that one.

(4) You and I probably agree on that one, even though we don't agree on some of the details. Personally I think that you gotta be consistent in calling palming/carrying all over the court, and I guess that the FED must kinda agree also, having made it a POE in the past. How do you answer the player that says "Why now? I've been doing it all game". Do you respond "Yes, you were palming the other times but I didn't think that it shoulda been called then". Now....3-seconds....10-seconds for a free thrower...maybe a fisted ball...fine. All violations---> never imo. Another point......I really don't think that you can teach official how to use this type of judgment. I think that it has to be learned through experience, and some officials never will learn it.... no matter what. Jmo.