Philosophy

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

By rule, huh? You always get me there. SPIRIT AND INTENT, SPIRIT AND INTENT! Can't be said enough. By sticking their leg out they are hoping you are going to call that incidental contact, and that is exactly what you are doing. I am a firm believer that it is not the intent of the rule that the player should get away with something like that just because the exact wording of the rule protects them.

P.S. If you would kindly read the bottom of my first post in this thread, I would greatly and ALWAYS appreciate it. Thank you.

Sigh.....

Again, you really don't understand the concept of legal guarding position. I don't care what you say about the spirit and intent of the rule. The bottom line is that the rule book says that you are completely and totally wrong. And I know that you keep saying that you are a college and pro official too, but if you ever tried to call that nonsense in one of those games, you'd never do another one.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

By rule, huh? You always get me there. SPIRIT AND INTENT, SPIRIT AND INTENT! Can't be said enough. By sticking their leg out they are hoping you are going to call that incidental contact, and that is exactly what you are doing. I am a firm believer that it is not the intent of the rule that the player should get away with something like that just because the exact wording of the rule protects them.

P.S. If you would kindly read the bottom of my first post in this thread, I would greatly and ALWAYS appreciate it. Thank you.

First of all, where does the "exact wording of the rule" protect the defender, LGP or not, who "stick[s] their leg out"? It doesn't. That is a block, every time. That is different than the situation under discussion.

Second, I am a firm believer that a player whose play meets "the exact wording of the rule" is not "get[ting] away" with anything. He or she is playing perfectly legal basketball and no referee should apply personal interpretations, even under the guise of "SPIRIT AND INTENT," to invent fouls on perfectly legal plays.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We've been told that most times on a block/charge scenario, when a player goes down, you should have a foul somewhere. The OP, however, I would say is the exception. I have to wonder, though, how it's happening so often in a game.
I think I know the answer. I played point guard in school, and I remember a game where I drew about 4 fouls by purposefully tripping over the defender's feet as we were running side by side. I kept doing it, because we kept gettin the call. My thoughts; if this is happening more than once in a game with the same offensive player, you need to consider that he might be doing it on purpose.

I agree with this totally. If a kid seems like he his flopping to get this call, I will no call it and tell him to stop it and from then on the onus is on him. Good statement Snaqwells

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh.....

Again, you really don't understand the concept of legal guarding position. I don't care what you say about the spirit and intent of the rule. The bottom line is that the rule book says that you are completely and totally wrong. And I know that you keep saying that you are a college and pro official too, but if you ever tried to call that nonsense in one of those games, you'd never do another one.

Just to clarify to everyone, and so you will stop using and misleading everyone on the forum, I DO NOT WORK PRO BALL. I have worked it and plan on working it in the future, but am not working it at this very moment and if you will gladly point to me the post where I explicitly said that I will retract my statement right here and now.

[tomegun]

Even if you don't do pro ball, some of your comments are dubious for a college or experienced high school official.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

If you finally can't match at all, and things are just looking way unfair, you can try to arrange it so that you're always under the basket, or he's always under the basket, so the same ref is getting first crack at the same plays. At least this is how I've tried to handle it when P and I are calling the same things at all.

How can you possibly do this in a game?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Just to clarify to everyone, and so you will stop using and misleading everyone on the forum, I DO NOT WORK PRO BALL. I have worked it and plan on working it in the future, but am not working it at this very moment and if you will gladly point to me the post where I explicitly said that I will retract my statement right here and now.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...194#post357194

Your quotes were:

- "It is hard to keep up when you ARE working three different rulesets. I know in the pros and college....."

- "You are still allowed to work anything you want if you work in the WNBA and the NBA D-League. Don't forget about semi-pro and pro-ams in the summer as well. I have to keep up with these rulesets as I work and will be working with all of these rulesets. I hope that one one day I will be able to narrow it down to two, and finally to one, but for now that is how it has to be".

You stated that you are working three rulesets. I just want to clarify that if you are, then you are wrong in your interpretation of LGP and how to make a block/charge call in three different rulesets too.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

By rule, huh? You always get me there. SPIRIT AND INTENT, SPIRIT AND INTENT! Can't be said enough.

It can, and has, been said enough. One must understand the literal meaning of a rule before one can begin to make legitimate exceptions to that literal meaning.

Routine applications of the "letter" of a rule can be made without appealing to the rule's spirit. The vast majority of cases fall within the scope of routine applications. Thus, it is wise to learn the rules.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by tomegun

How can you possibly do this in a game?

Switch on every foul? If you're lead at one end, and call a foul, you'll end up as lead at the other end so you can call the same play the same way. Same with trail. It's not that difficult.

[Kelvin green]

Call a block on a player with LGP. No way! no How.

If a players is playing good defense we should never penalize it, when the player is playing marginal defense then they get called for the foul. If this player does not move the feet, and had LGP (no extensions out side of the frame... etc) It is most likely nothing or PC...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

If a players is playing dood defense we should never penalize it...

Dood defense? Is that a new trend in hs ball? I thought was mainly in the bar leagues...

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Switch on every foul? If you're lead at one end, and call a foul, you'll end up as lead at the other end so you can call the same play the same way. Same with trail. It's not that difficult.

Oh, so when you officiate these plays happen back to back right after you switch? That must work out nice for you. I don't work games where the players are so kind as to have similar plays back to back so we can make the same call every time. Where does the calling official go when it is a three man game? Are you sure it isn't that difficult? Think about it and tell me again how you can make sure the same official is at lead for these calls.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Oh, so when you officiate these plays happen back to back right after you switch? That must work out nice for you. I don't work games where the players are so kind as to have similar plays back to back so we can make the same call every time. Where does the calling official go when it is a three man game? Are you sure it isn't that difficult? Think about it and tell me again how you can make sure the same official is at lead for these calls.

I don't work any 3-whistle, so I can't answer that part. No it doesn't always work out nicely like that, but sometimes it does. It's not a panacea to totally even out the calling. It's just one more possible way to reduce the number of problems that we can create for ourselves. Sometimes my partner and I can agree, sometimes the same person can be in place to call the same thing at both ends.

Occasionally, we have a problem when each partner refuses to adjust their calls. When that happens, and I think that's what the question in the oP was about, I try to adjust a little, and I try to make it so that one of us is getting the same calls at both ends. It's not the final answer, but it's one more tool.

The tone of your responses seems a little snippy. What's the issue?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The tone of your responses seems a little snippy. What's the issue?

That is part of the problem with typing instead of talking, I thought your previous post was a little snippy. To say it isn't that difficult isn't really accurate when you have to follow it up with many "ifs." In fact, it wouldn't be that difficult if these plays happened back to back and we all worked two man. Since we know, and knew when you made your original post, that it isn't that cut and dry, your reply was a little snippy. As always, please don't mistake my responses as snippy. I'm sorry, but I can be intense about things.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by tomegun

That is part of the problem with typing instead of talking, I thought your previous post was a little snippy. As always, please don't mistake my responses as snippy. I'm sorry, but I can be intense about things.

Okay, I see your point. If I remember correctly, you and I have had this problem before.

You know I also think that you do a lot higher level of ball that Rita and I are talking about. in JH, and Frsh and JV it often happens that the same thing will happen at both ends over and over. Less true in varsity, probably even less in college.

And that reminds me of another little coping mechanism to deal with it when P and I aren't on the same page. If a coach complains, "Call it both ways!", I have said a few times, "Coach those two plays were clearly not the same situation." That can be sort of true on almost any two situations, but you can't say it too often.