My Partner Asked Me If I Was T Happy

[Junker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

...so you decided to debate the intricacies of the rule with the coach anyway.

That worked out well, didn't it?

Here's some advice, you can take or leave:

Keep explanations as short and simple as possible except for unusual situations. A no call on a 3 second violation is hardly unusual.

This is very good advice. I had to learn this lesson the hard way.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Coach: "WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL 3 SECONDS??!"
You: "Because he didn't violate the rule"

Then walk away.

Much as in the "stop sign" debate, that answer might work for some, but I would never use it. I prefer a "5 words or less" rules answer --"Starts over on a try" or "not while he's shooting".

Tells the coach that you saw the player in the lane, that you were counting, but there's a specific reason not to call the violation.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I told him that as long as the player is making an offensive move, the three second count SUSPENDS and that double pumping is part of the attempt to shoot. He argued it a little bit, so I told him that was the rule and that I am not here to debate it.

I agree that you should not have (and apparently did not) debate the rule with the coach or his bench, but we should debate it here, no? I don't agree with your interpretation of the rule. If a player is in the lane and pump faking for a long time (for example, more than 3 seconds), isn't that, by rule, a violation?

I certainly agree that if a player has been in the lane for a couple of seconds and looks like she or he is making an offensive move, I'm not looking to nit-pick the three seconds, but I just disagree that the proper rule interpretation is that officials HAVE to suspend the three second count when a player is faking attempts.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Much as in the "stop sign" debate, that answer might work for some, but I would never use it. I prefer a "5 words or less" rules answer --"Starts over on a try" or "not while he's shooting".

Tells the coach that you saw the player in the lane, that you were counting, but there's a specific reason not to call the violation.

Disagree, especially at this level, with this call.

The coach isn't interested in learning anything new about the 3 second rule. He's PO'ed because he thinks you screwed him. Frankly I wouldn't even honor this complaint with *any* answer, it's so silly. IMO telling him why you didn't make the call for this particular situation opens you up to criticism when he thinks you're contradicting yourself later. Or even worse he'll disagree with your explanation as happened to Ignats.

Anyway, this dead horse isn't worth beating. Ignats gave his explanation to the coach and still ended up T'ing the assistant. Good T in any event.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Dan,

I think you are jumping to a conclusion. Here's a synopsis of what happened.

1. I answered it with one sentence.

There never was a debate.

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I told him that as long as the player is making an offensive move, the three second count SUSPENDS and that double pumping is part of the attempt to shoot. He argued it a little bit, so I told him that was the rule and that I am not here to debate it.

That seems to be more than one sentence. I think you have been given two approaches, Dan's and Bob's. I think one of the two would work if the coach asks a question. Of course, if the coach isn't asking the question calmly I would start by saying, "Coach, please don't yell at me anymore tonight."

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignats75
I told him that as long as the player is making an offensive move, the three second count SUSPENDS and that double pumping is part of the attempt to shoot. He argued it a little bit, so I told him that was the rule and that I am not here to debate it.

Does anyone else believe that that is incorrect?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:


Does anyone else believe that that is incorrect?

As someone who's called 2 3-second violations in 3 years, I'd say it's close enough.

Have to say I'm with Dan on this one. The intracacies of the 3-second rule are impossible to explain without sounding like a moron to the coach, so why bother?

[Ignats75]

Art 1...The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.

Art 2...A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for a goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgement (italic's mine) is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player's hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.

Art 3...The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball

Art 4...The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain that the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead.

Art 5-8 has to do with taps and is not germain to this discussion.

Art 3 seems to include the pump fakes.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Art 3...The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball

Art 3 seems to include the pump fakes.

If I pump fake and then pass to my teammate, did I start and end a try for goal?

If I am fouled during this action, do I get two FTs?

Just wait till JR shows up.

[Ignats75]

I would give two shot if you were fouled on a pump fake. If you were to pump fake and then pass, I would probably call 3 seconds on you. Again, Art 3 of the definition of a try is the start of a shot. You can go up with a picture perfect jump shot and pass out of it at the top of your jump. Its still a try until you change it into a pass attempt.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I would give two shot if you were fouled on a pump fake.

I wouldn't. The shooter has not started a try. That foul is on the floor.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I would give two shot if you were fouled on a pump fake. If you were to pump fake and then pass, I would probably call 3 seconds on you. Again, Art 3 of the definition of a try is the start of a shot. You can go up with a picture perfect jump shot and pass out of it at the top of your jump. Its still a try until you change it into a pass attempt.

If, in your judgement, it's a pump fake, why would you award FTs? The name implies that it's not a shot - it's a FAKE.

I guess this would be one of those situations where you had to be there to witness the action. If it was clearly a pump fake, then I would probably go with it on the floor. But if the foul was enough to possibly cause the shooter to withhold the shot, that might be a different story. It would be hard for me to say that it would definitely be one or the other and call it that way every time.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

The first complaining I hear in OUR direction from non-head coaches is a warning. The next time I give the T. The easiest thing for me to do is IGNORE them. I have no problem with your T. However, next time give the bench the STOP sign, ask the coach to control his bench, and IGNORE until you need to WHACK!!!

You and deecee need to get together and share your ideas on bench decorum. Ignoring the poor behavior may be the easiest thing to do, but it is not the best.

It is also a poor policy to always give a warning for the first complaining from the asst. coaches. The word with quickly get around amongst your local coaches that you never T the first complaint, so they will know that they get a free one.

Now go PM tomegun and tell him that you recommended the stop sign.

BTW what is the difference in the penalty between ignoring the coach and giving him the stop sign?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PYRef

But if the foul was enough to possibly cause the shooter to withhold the shot, that might be a different story.

That makes no sense at all. If it causes the shooter to withhold the shot, the shooter then never shot. The foul would obviously have to be before the shot. And if the shooter never shot, you can't have a foul "in the act of shooting".