game play situation #2
 

here is the setup.
you are slot opposite the table. a1 drives from trails area to the basket(with the ball) slightly out of control. as he drives he stumbles, throws up a shot(misses) and falls to the floor. b1, on backside rebounding jumps(slightly forward) and grabs the rebound. a1's momentum takes him under b1's feet. as b1 comes down from the jump he lands on top of a1 and falls to the floor with control of the ball. what would you call?

i called tripping(triping) foul on a1.
why? many thoughts went through my head.
1. my partners had no foul on the drive nor shot.(a1 falls without help)
2. a1 had no legal position laying on the floor.
3. verticality goes from the as high as the ceiling and as low as the floor.

i have asked many officials what they would call and get a 50/50 response. travel/foul
is there anything i am not considering that i should/could consider?

I would probably call traveling. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. You staed that the rebounder jumped slightly forward. Therefore, he probably did not go up and come down within his vertical plane.

Sometimes ugly things happen.

Re: game play situation #2
 

10.6.1E is a similar play. A1 is entitled to his/her position, even if it's momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Call the travel.

Bob and Tony
 

A Travel works.

Re: game play situation #2
 

Is A1 still moving when B1 lands on him? If so, I call a foul. Which foul is the question? I would say block because A1 is moving into the path of B1's landing. If he has already stopped than it is traveling. (one I would not like to see on my watch)

This is a tough play. In my opinion there are certain situations where players are not entitled to the position they are in. If a player is on the floor with legs and arms spread out and a player falls over him the foul is on the player on the floor. If a defensive player is bent over and a player jumps into him on a drive to the basket and that offensive player is submarined and practically does a flip and falls to the floor hard the foul is on the defensive player. If a player is standing with his legs spread out way outside the plane of his shoulders and he is set and a dribbler tries to get around him and trips over the defender's foot the foul is on the defender. If a defensive player is standing underneath the basket and a offensive player drives in for a dunk and then a collision occurs this is a foul on the defensive player. All these are tough plays but in my opinion illustrate that there are certain defensive positions that are unnatural and are not part of the game of basketball and thus should be penalized. This philosophy is used by pro officials extensively, by college officials a great deal, and by high school officials not as much. Strive to match your philosophy to top notch officials and call fouls on these plays.

First, welcome to the board!

You're knew here so I'll tell you what most of us already know. When dealing with rule situations, opinions mean very little to those of us who are students of the game. Can you reference a rule that backs up your stand that "there are certain situations where players are not entitled to the position they are in?" Because I can, and will, give your reasons why several of the situations you present are not fouls on the defender.


Not true. 10.6.1 E
10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down. (7-4-1, 2)

Not true. 4-23-3d
ART. 3 After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
d. [/b]The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.[/b]

Agreed. 4-23-1
A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.


Not true. 10.6.1 D
B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1.
Ruling: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. B1's foul on the airborne shooter is a foul during the act of shooting. If the shot is successful, one free throw is awarded and if it is unsuccessful, two free throws result. (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; Penalty Summary 2, 5a)


Then why aren't those situations considered fouls on the defense by those who write the rules. When we take it upon ourselves to call the game as we see it, we do a disservice to ourselves, the fans, players and coaches.

When officiating high school basketball, we must follow the rules for high school basketball, no matter what our brothers in the NBA and NCAA do. Strive to call the rules based on the game that you're officiating. Don't apply NBA and NCAA philsophies, rules, and mechanics to NFHS situations when the rules don't apply. You'll find that most of the situations here are posted by high school officials, based on NF rules.

Again, welcome to the board! :)

Basketball Ref, I appreciate your input and I like the way you cite your information from the casebook. I think of this play from the point of view of the rebounder, who jumps to get the rebound and while fading back if he contacted an opponent standing up then 99% of the time this would be an incidental play with no foul call. However, if he comes down on someone on the floor then he would most likely get his feet tangled up and fall to the floor. This is not right, in my opinion, to call a travel here and penalize the rebounder. Players lying on the floor is not part of the game of basketball. Likewise, players standing underneath the basket is not part of the game of basketball. I agree that your casebook citations support you, however, it is also in the college rule book/casebook that a player is allowed to draw a charge underneath the basket, but officials are taught by top college officials at camps and other places to call this a block. Not everything should be taken literally from the rulebook. Rules are very important and I study them often, but we have to apply our own common sense as well. For example the rule book says we can call a 3 second violation while the ball is in team control, but not player control but obviously if the ball is rolling around and is loose we would use common sense and not call 3 seconds here.

Whoa!!! Where did we start talking about judgement on a travel? Either the player travelled or he/she didn't.

The college interpretation is that fouls below the backboard are automatically blocks. If you're working college basketball, call it that way - because that is probably what the assignors want. When calling HS, go by the NFHS rules and interpretations!

One of the basics of basketball is that every player is entitled to a spot on the court. As long as the player on the floor got there in enough time to let A1 go around him, there can be no foul on the player on the floor.

I was going to quote the thing that I had a question about, but I couldn't find the original statement when I went looking for it!

What reasoning would be used by the assignors in College or higher in stating that Block/Charge calls made behind the plane of the backboard should be called as blocks? It seems to me that the area behind the backboard is no different than anywhere else on the court, with the obvious exception of not being allowed to pass over the backboard if it is rectangular.

Also, not to open a can of worms, but why do the assignors have the ability to make their own rules interpretations? Is this part of the job? In High School, as far as I understand it, we have a rules interpreter who handles that aspect, but his interpertations come from the state association. The assignor schedules games.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

The college interpretation is that fouls below the backboard are automatically blocks.

Mark, I don't think that's correct. You may be thinking about the experimental rules from last season. In certain pre-"conference schedule" tournaments (Maui Invitational, Great Alaska Shootout, etc.) last season, the NCAA experimented with the NBA's "no charge" zone. The painted the little half-circle under the basket. The rule was that a defender coming over to help cannot draw a charge while inside that semicircle. So:

1) As I understand it, the rule only applies to a second defender, coming over to help; and

2) It's not "automatically" a block; most officials will simply pass on the call. But if there's enough contact for a whistle, then it has to be a block.

In any case, the rule was not adopted for the current season, and while many officials pass on contact that occurs "in the shadow of the rim", there is no official rule (to my knowledge) mandating the "no charge" philosophy that you mention.

Chuck

Then write to the rules committee and ask that the rule be changed to reflect your opinion.

Or, state in your answer that "the rule is "x", but I think it's a "bad rule." I'll still cal it as the NFHS wants it."

Quote:

Players lying on the floor is not part of the game of basketball. Likewise, players standing underneath the basket is not part of the game of basketball. I agree that your casebook citations support you, however, it is also in the college rule book/casebook that a player is allowed to draw a charge underneath the basket, but officials are taught by top college officials at camps and other places to call this a block.

That's (sort of) the men's rule only. The women's rule is that this is a block (or a no call). (The men's rule is that if the shot is good, then it should be a no-call. If the shot is missed *and* the defender is placed at a rebounding disadvantage, it should be a charge (not PC). Rarely would you see both items happen, so you'll rarely see a charge call.)

Quote:

Not everything should be taken literally from the rulebook. Rules are very important and I study them often, but we have to apply our own common sense as well. For example the rule book says we can call a 3 second violation while the ball is in team control, but not player control but obviously if the ball is rolling around and is loose we would use common sense and not call 3 seconds here.

THe latest women's NCAA memo makes a clear point on the difference between a "loose ball" and an "interrupted dribble" and says to call the 3-seconds during a loose ball. Since it's a POE in women's ball this year, I suspect you'll see some of it -- and you'll start to see it trickle down to the HS game.

BTW, if you use paragraphs in your posts, they'll be easier to read.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter Quote: The college interpretation is that fouls below the backboard are automatically blocks. Mark, I don't think that's correct. You may be thinking about the experimental rules from last season. In certain pre-"conference schedule" tournaments (Maui Invitational, Great Alaska Shootout, etc.) last season, the NCAA experimented with the NBA's "no charge" zone. The painted the little half-circle under the basket. The rule was that a defender coming over to help cannot draw a charge while inside that semicircle. So: 1) As I understand it, the rule only applies to a second defender, coming over to help; and 2) It's not "automatically" a block; most officials will simply pass on the call. But if there's enough contact for a whistle, then it has to be a block. In any case, the rule was not adopted for the current season, and while many officials pass on contact that occurs "in the shadow of the rim", there is no official rule (to my knowledge) mandating the "no charge" philosophy that you mention. Chuck

What I'm thinking of is that, as BktBallRef said, I believe, contact under the basket is generally a block or a no-call.

I see it as somewhat similar to the NF 10 second restriction on free throws. Yes, you are within rule to call it, but if you do it excessively, you're not going to be assigned a ton of games.

the reasoning for the restricted area in the pro and nc2a womens, is that a defender cannot(not all the time but most) defend the basket/contest a shot while standing under the basket. this is the philosophy, which goes along with the player lying on the floor, he cannot defend anything so there is no point on being on the floor accident or not. this is not in the mens rules but is taught at the mens camps. they just want us to look a little deeper into the situation, these plays are not black and white.

Nope! Definitely was not me that said that!

D*mn crew, is your rule book gray? :)

When there are rules and case book plays in place to cover a specific situation, then the colors are black and white, not gray.

BTW, I bet they didn't teach you that at a high school camp. One of the biggest problems in high school basketball today is that too many officials go to camp, come home, and try to apply college mechanics, philosphies and rules to high school basketball. For those who do this, give us all a break and stop calling HS ball. You're just making it more difficult for the rest of us. :(

I'm sorry, Tony. That would be Chuck who said something along those lines.

Why does my brain have to stop functioning right around finals?

i do not know if you guys know eroe39(eli roe), but the name sounded familiar to me so i asked around. apparently he is an official making his way successfully through the sec system,(and umbrella) and officiates in the nbdl and wnba. it may be wise to accept his rules knowledge/interpretations to raise your level of officiating. if you want to be a good highschool offical just ignore him but, do not discredit him because there are some people on this forum that would like to achieve the next level. by the way who said this forum was strictly highschool, college and pro philosophies are welcomed by me. now that you know, give credit where it is due.

I'm sure Eli is a fine official. I have no doubt that he will continue to move up the ladder, if that is his desire. Good luck Eli, and as I've already said, welcome!

With regards to this forum, 95% of the posts here are by high school officials and are based on NF rules. So, if you're speaking in terms of NCAA rulings or philosophies, or the NBA, whcih I've never seen except for a question or two by a fan, then it might help mention that in your post.

In my reply to Eli, I cited NF rules and case plays. He still disagreed with my many points and the rules and case plays that I quoted. I'm sure he's quite knowledgable. But when any official attempts to convince me of something that I can plainly see is different than what's in the rule book, I'll always have difficulty with it. No matter who it is.

With regards to high school officials, there's nothing wrong with being happy and content with officiating high school basketball. That doesn't mean one is complacent or isn't ambitious. I personally, have too many other interests that would prevent me from ever pursuing a college career or further.

BTW, no one has attempted to discredit anyone. People make their own decisions. I don't believe Eli has done anything to be discredited for. He is certainly entitled to his point of view. But that doesn't mean we have to agree. Does it Eli? :)

BasketballRef, this forum is very interesting. I didn't realize what type of debate this would cause when I decided to actually answer some of these plays. A friend of mine told me about this and I think this is a great way for people to learn from others and exchange different view points. I'll have to admit I did not know this forum was primarily answered by high school officials so that is partly my fault and I should of mentioned that my points are not based on high school basketball. But I do agree with Mark that this forum should accept college and pro philosophies. Even if they are not agreed with it can't hurt to discuss them. Some people are interested in the pro game or college game. I was hoping to remain incognito on this forum but I guess that is too late. I certainly agree with you that there is absolutely nothing wrong with working high school basketball. I loved working high school basketball and actually miss it. I totally understand that some people cannot pursue the college or pro game due to family, job, etc. You made a comment that I disagree with you despite the casebook plays or rules. That is not normal for me. I guess I am out of room so I will go to another page.

We cannot take every rule literally. I think I mentioned the 3 second play to you. Here are a couple more examples. It is a delay of game warning when the defender of the throw-in steps out of bounds or waves his hand so that it goes over the boundary plane even if just by two inches. Obviously, as officials we do not call this play every time as defenders violate this rule constantly. We use our judgement when to enforce the rule. When we believe it places the thrower-in at a disadvantage we call this. Also, it is a technical foul if the coach steps onto the floor. However, practically every coach in America steps onto the court several times during a game and generally it is just to yell instructions to his players. We use our judgement when to enforce this rule. Not all rules are black and white in my opinion. Judgement still needs to be used as to when to enforce certain rules. The spirit and intent of the rule should be analyzed. Please don't think I am somehow anti-rule. I study the rules religiously and think they are very important to the game.

And no, BasketballRef, you don't have to agree with me. I am certainly not some know-it-all. I welcome different opinions and look forward to hearing yours.

I meant Larry, when I said Mark, in my earlier post. Sorry guys, I am new to this and am having to start over a lot.

Well stated...
Here are some more;
* The semi dunk...not slam dunk...in pregame warmups...if just a one time thing I'll usually ignore it...NO "T"

* The books at the table are not completely filled out 10 minutes prior to the game...person is still frantically writing the players and numbers in...I don't check the books untill I see they are finished...NO "T"

* Both the Coach and Assistant Coach are standing in or outside the box during the game...I warn them...NO "T"

* (Here's one that will get some of you)...A player misses a lay-up...uses profanity under his breath, to himself...I hear it...maybe say something to him at a break in the action...NO "T"

All of the above, BY RULE, could be a Technical Foul...and sometimes they will be called...sometimes they will not...depends on the situation. Therefore, IMO not black and white.

Sorry BsktbalRef, but I do believe this is a good forum for opinons...it develops each officials personal philosophy of how he/she wants to call the game. You seem to have an excellent knowledge of the rules...keep up the great work on the rule references...but please, have some patience with those officials who want to post their thoughts...try not to belittle them...just show them where they are "wrong".

I would be willing to bet a game check that there are many who read these posts but are afraid to ask or respond to questions because of the ridicule they may face.

That is too bad,because no matter how simple the question may be to the experienced official...it is still good review for all of us.

RookieDude

Just FYI, eroe, you can go beyond the limits of the box for posting. It will simply become a scroll box and make the post larger.

Folks,
Eli will prove to be a valuable resource for this board.
He is currently in the NBA development program and is learning daily from the best in the business. (Eli, I hope you don't mind being "outed")
I have worked with Eli at Coast to Coast Referee School and know that he is an excellent official. (Brad, you may know Eli as well)
IMHO, sometimes the High School rules are not written with a whole of common sense. As you progress to higher levels of basketball you will find that common sense in combination with rules knowledge is essential to calling the game.
The philosophies I have learned from the NBA officials
that have taught me, (Ed Rush, Ron Garretson, Bob Delaney, Greg Willard, Steve Javie,Gary Zielinski, and many others)
have NEVER failed me or gotten me in trouble when working a
High School or College game.
Eli, I know that this board primarily deals with High School and College situations, but I for one hope you continue to post. Good luck with your season,and when you see Kurt, Mike H, and Gary Z., say Hi for me.
Drake Marques

I agree that we should be able to mix philosophies and the rules for levels on this board, but in my opinion the result should be a salad, not a smoothie. What I mean is, When you make a salad, you chop up lettuce, carrots, celery, maybe green pepper if you can digest it, and so on, but each item remains what it fundamentally was. and you could at any time, put all the carrot pieces into a pile and all the celery into a different pile and then use those in some different dish, such as a casserole that takes carrot, but not celery.

We are all adults here and should be mature enough to have mixed discussions, while keeping the elements separated. For instance, NBA philosophy simply cannot be used at the 6th grade rec level. It is fundamentally not the same. I can talk about both, and even apply both in different games, but I'm not going to try to put NBA thinking in the blender with recreational playing and come out with one homogeneous product.

The people around here that do different levels, usually are very good at one level, before they move up and start over with a different level. I am hoping to be that kind of ref someday, so while I am at the level of JV and below, I am taking all talk of college and pro with a grain of salt -- not that it's wrong but that I am not going to use it right now. The salt is a preservative, to hold it over for later.

I especially am interested in the part about eroe doing WNBA, and would read all those posts with interest, since my aspiration is to rise to that level someday. However, I'm not going to use WNBA philosophy or rules in the games I do this year -- it would not be right.

I particularly disagree with the person who said, they may pass on a charge if the defender is under the basket. In the NBA, this is the right no-call, by rule. In NF, this is the WRONG NO-CALL whether the fans like it or not. They usually only go by what they see on TV so they may not scream, if you skip it, but that is no true and faithful guide. I would expect that if eroe came and did a HS game, he would expect to call this charge, and would do it when it happened. He could not have risen to the level he has without being faithful to the level he was working.

Hey Rook, just so you know, under NFHS & NCAA this is NOT a
T. The requirement is to *supply* the lineup & starters
to the table 10 minutes before. All you have to do is make
sure what eventually gets into the book matches what was
provided.

But I get your point. :)

Common rules
 

I believe that Rainmaker is right to a degree. However, I would argue that there are some common philosophical approaches that can (should) be used at all levels. The same philosophy results in different calls depending on level of play. While this point may be obvious to some, I think it is an important distinction.

1. Know AND understand the rules, the cases, and the game of basketball.

2. By utilizing all of this knowledge and understanding, referee not merely to the rule, but to the spirit and intent of the rule.

3. Call what you must, but try to keep a game flowing. The game is for players to play. (In 3rd grade rec, this means ignore the three step travel on a lay-up but call the downcourt sprint with no dribble. In HS, this may be not saying a word when the coach is one step on the court, unless he is doing so to get in your face. In college, you may be ignoring the three second call unless forced to make it.)

4. Be consistent within the game so the players can play to what you are calling.

5. Maintain a safe and sportsmanlike contest.

6. Respect all participants.

7. Love what you do - it's a great game!

I am not going to address the NBA/WNBA's position on a defender standing under the basket, but I will address the NFHS/NCAA position.

The definition of obtaining(NFHS)/establishing(NCAA) a legal guarding position are identical in both rules books. The definition of a legal guarding position has never placed court position requirements on the defender. The reason is that when a player becomes airborne, he/she must do so in a manner that will allow him/her to return to the floor without making illegal contact with a defender who has obtained a legal position on the court. Fortunately, the NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees have had the good sense to maintain this intepretation. Barb Jacobs, unfortunately, has never officiated basketball and really has very little knowledge of the rules of the game (just read some of the interpretations that have come from her office, including incorrect rules citations), and she does not understand the concept of having a legal position on the court.

It should also be remembered that a defender does not have to be guarding an opponent to have a legal position on the court. A defender can also set screens. (If you do not believe me, read the definitions of guarding and screening. Guarding specifically addresses defensive players, and screening specifically addresses players, and makes no mention of defensive or offensive players.) Just because a player has gained a legal position on the court that happens to be directly under the basket should be on no consequence. Barb Jacob's interpretation regarding a defensive player under the basket can not be defended by rule. I can remember when she made this interpretation, a number of my friends that officiate Div. I women's basketball were appalled at the interpretation. If you take the time to look at the section in question in the NCAA Women's Rules and look at Rule 13 (Comments on the Rules) of the NBA/WNBA Rules Books that addresses defenders standing under the basket (inside the little circle), one will see that they are identical, word for word.

No, we can't and I don't. But when the NF posts a situation in the case book or on their website, I blieve it's because they want it called that way. I cited a case play that addresses the original post. In such cases as this, I believe the NF wants the rule called based on the case book play. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to print the book.

It's either a dunk or it isn't. But if it's close, preventive officiating would dictate that you give a small warning to the player.

You may want to look at this rule again. The book does not have to be ready at the 10 minute mark. The roster and starting lineup for each team must simply be ready and available for the scorer to record.

Yes, but you shouldn't continue to warn them all night.

First, I've re-read what I wrote and I don't believe I've belittled anyone. I certainly didn't call anyone any names and refer to them in a derogatory manner.

Of course, this forum is is for opinions. But that doesn't mean we have to agree. When I feel that a rule supports my postion, I'm going to argue that rule. It would be silly for me to disagree but not offer my opinion as well. And if I have a rule to back me up, I'm going to use it.

Well, that's unfortunate. Spirited debate is part of this forum. You're new and hopefully you will adjustn to that. I've been posting here for a while. I'd rather someone stand up and argue their point with me than to act as if I don't exist and talk about me in the third person. It's very unlikely that I'll supress my opinion if I feel strongly about it. I hope you won't be offended.

I have not seen any question, no matter how simple, put to ridicule. Again, don't be offended but you can't be so sensitive. There are lots of young officials on this board that I believe I have helped since I first began to post. I'll be glad to help you but you gotta take the good with what you perceive as the bad.

If not, then do what I do in some cases. Just ignore the post.

Drake, I appreciate the props. It's been awhile. I remember learning from you and Larry when I worked with you all at Coast to Coast when I knew very little about the pro game. I am working with Z this Saturday and will tell him you said Hi.

drake m.,
what do you think about this play?

I would call a block on A1.
Mainly on the philosophy that A1 did not provide B1 a spot to land.

Tony,
I actually had a play similar to yours a couple of weeks ago.
Defender B1 tries to take a charge and flops on the play.
A1 loses the ball, which is then picked up by A2.
All this time B1 is still on the floor. A2 then attempts
a layup, and as he is doing so,jumping over B1 on the ground, B1 rolls over, trying to get up and in the process
trips A2. I call foul on B1.
He says, "How can I foul him when I'm lying on the ground?"
Still a foul, nonetheless.

I do not understand your philosophy. Please detail the play so that I can understand your philosophy. Under NHFS and NCAA (not withstanding the Women's interpretation) rules, a player is entitled to any spot on the floor provided that the player secures that spot legally.

Would you have called a foul on B1, had he not tried to get up, not moved, and A2 tripped on him?

Warning a player dunking...
 

BktBallRef, you had some good points in your reply to RookieDude's Post.

But, I have to disagree with you on the warning to a player dunking in the pregame warmups.

Three years ago my partner and I were doing a H.S. Boys Varsity Game. During the pregame warmups I heard what sounded like a dunk, I didn't see it as I was watching the Home team warm up. As I looked over, I see my partner "quietly" walk over to the player and tell him something.

Well, the Home Team coach saw everything. The dunk, the "warning", and my partner walking back to where I was at midcourt.

The Coach was livid! He said, "where in the rules does it say you warn a player for dunking...if you saw it, CALL IT! If you don't want to call it...then ignore it...don't
warn him!"

We didn't "T" the player for the dunk...but the Coach had a point.

Dan Ivey

Mark,
From reading the original post,
the rebounder was in the air when A1 slid under him.
That would be my reasoning for a block call.

BktballRef,
If the player was just laying on the floor protecting himself, I would not have called a foul on him.

Okay, now I understand. A1 gained his position on the floor after B1 became an airborne player, hence the blocking or tripping foul on A1. That makes sense. Thank you for your clarification.

Thanks Drake. That's been my point all along. If the rebounder goes up and comes straight, I have a foul. Bit if he jumps forward, as is stated in the origianl post, I have traveling when he falls to the floor.

Re: Warning a player dunking...
 

I agree with you Dan. If you re-read my post, I said, "But if it's close, preventive officiating would dictate that you give a small warning to the player." I was speaking of a situation where the player didn't dunk but came close to doing it. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

4-34.37 incidental contact
art 3. contact thay does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements shall be incidental.
this play hinders a rebounders natural movement
art 6. when a player approaches an opponent from behind or a position from which the player has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibilty for the contact will be of that player in the unfavorable position.
the player on the floor has no chance to play the ball and he is in unfavorable positioning.

and to ref. unnatural positioning.

4-33.34 handsand arms, use of
art 5. it shall be illegal to extend ones arms fully or partially other than vertically so that the freedom of movementof an opponent is hindered when contact with the extended arms occurs.
art 6. it shall be illegal to extend ones elbows when ones
c. when ones arms are horizontal to the playing court.
note: these illegal positions are most commonly used rebounding, screening, or in the various aspects of play.

these are all solid references to support the foul being called.

So, I guess case play 10.6.1E and the NF is wrong, too.

We disagree, so there's no need to discuss it any further.

im not saying nf is wrong. i am saying there are different perspectives to this play.

[Edited by crew on Dec 18th, 2001 at 01:30 AM]

an even bigger problem is that some officials dont go to camp. therefor they stay stagnant and do not get any better. highschool basketball is a good farm system for people who want to get into college. even at some highschool levels the level of basketball is college level. therefor an official must up his level of officiating and "evolve" with the game. these plays that i write are difficult to get correct if you have never seen this level of basketball. i write them to stimulate and thought provoke your mind to understand athleticism. play calling is harder than applying rules. judgement is another factor that seperates college officials from highschool. if you care to move up at all listen to ero39, and drake m. they have great advice. and for those of you who dont care to get better give the kids a break and stop calling highschool ball.

Crew: I get the feeling that you firmly believe that a player who is not standing on his feet is not entitled to his spot on the floor. So let me pose this play for you.


B1 has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA & FIBA) a legal guarding position with respect to A1 who is dribbling the ball. A1 dribbles directly toward B1 and B1 backs up as A1 dribbles toward him. As A1 gets close to B1, B1 stumbles backwards and lands on his backside and A1 continues dribbling right over B1 and (a) makes contact with B1's chest with his foot or (b) trips over B1 and fall to the floor while holding the ball.

Your assignment if you choose to accept is to make rulings for both (a) and (b), citing both rule and casebook plays. You may use NFHS, NCAA, and/or FIBA rules and casebook plays. This tape will self destruct in ten seconds.

mark,
i accept your challenge. i will write it tonite(dec 18) or tommorrow.
take care

game play situation #2
 

I will agree with those who answered a foul on the player lying on the floor. As an ex-player and now official myself common sense tells all fans, players, coaches, and officials that a player who makes an athletic play at the rim level and grabs a rebound is entitled to land with his feet firmly on the floor without having to hurdle or dodge a player lying sprawled out on the ground. I would have a foul here.

As far as the comments about going to camp and applying NCAA and NBA rules and philosophies to high school games, I have no comment for such low blows. However, there aren't enough good officials out there to begin with from middle school and on up the playing levels. Let's keep a big picture approach and not direct comments at people who do work in several higher leagues and high school at the same time. The game is in NEED of good officials and good people

Re: game play situation #2
 

So you use common sense. Great! The rules aren't always based on common sense, though. Common sense would tell me that if A1 inbounded the ball, and then B1 tapped the ball OOB where it touched A1 that A should get the ball. The rule, however, says that B gets the ball.

BTW, I'd advise you to get a few more than three posts under your belt before you come on here and start criticising everyone in sight.

Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

Oops, maybe you should re-read this part. If you don't
have a change of heart then tell us how many posts he'll
need before he can give his opinion.

Re: Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

Dan,
Yer right. Number of posts is not a measurement of anything except time lost. ;)
mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

The time is gone regardless of how we spend it. Wasted...
now that's something else! :)

Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

BTW, I'd advise you to get a few more than three posts under your belt before you come on here and start criticising everyone in sight.

mark dexter,
what does # of posts have to do with having an opinion on a subject. for all you know bbarnaky could be a great official whom has just found this board. btw, just because people post on this board does not qualify anyone for anything(i.e. being a good official). that includes YOU and MYSELF as well. any loser can type on this board as well as any great person.

Re: Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

First of all, it's you and me, not you and myself. (Sorry, I'm on a grammar crusade tonight.) :)

I probably came across the wrong way. Definately # of posts does not relate to ability - we all started at 1, and I'm only a rec ball official/real ball timer with six hundred something posts. When I first read BBarnaky's post this morning, I inferred it to mean "we need good officials, and you people are not good officials." Incorrect interpretation? Maybe, but (like opinions on calls) it was what I inferred at the time.

Re: Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

No, the number of posts is not an issue with regards to a person's right to voice their opinion. However, on a discussion board such as this, you gain credibility with other posters based on the knowledge and information you're able to pass on. Those who jump in feet first and start criticizing the posts of those who are respected on a particular board, are usually not well received.

Although he didn't say it well, I believe that's what Mr. Dexter was trying to convey.

Re: Re: Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter
[B]you mean "you and i"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: game play situation #2
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crew
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

Quote: First of all, it's you and me, not you and myself. (Sorry, I'm on a grammar crusade tonight.) :) you mean "you and i"

Sorry, crew, but this time it's not a matter of opinion -- grammar rules are not nearly as flexible as a ref's "judgment". When using pronouns in combination (such as the situation Mark refers to above) you use the same pronouns you would use if they were used singly. Original quote was, "...and that includes you and myself as well." If you were to use a single pronoun in that sentence, it would correctly read, "...and that includes me as well." When you add in the second pronoun you still use, "me" , so... " ...and that includes you and me as well."

There are a very few on this board who adhere strictly in their posts to proper grammatical structure, and Mark Dexter is one of them. I'm wondering if that shouldn't give him at least a little added credibility!?!? Especially when he uses "inferred" and "myriad" properly. And even spelled correctly. Wow!! Way to go, M.D.

[Edited by rainmaker on Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:32 AM]

Thanks, Juulie.

The easiest way to remember "(you/she/her/his/George) and (me/myself/I/etc.)" situations is just to remove the other person from the equation.

I remember saying at an assembly in front of the entire school "If you want to buy prom tickets, see Lynn or myself." I got such an earful from my English teacher that I now rarely get this one wrong :).

Why?
 

Did Lynn find someone else herself?

Correct. "you and I" should only be used as the subject. "you and me" is correct.

Mrs. Tillman, God rest her soul, would be proud of me for remembering that! :)

Here endeth the lesson. ;)

game play situation #2
 

It is unfortunate that people attempt to judge one based on number of posts and comments made. I was merely attempting to say I have seen many jabs at individuals about their comments that are personal attacks rather than OPINION. Opinion is great, it stimulates growth and thoughts. Personal attacks because one works rec ball or one works in a higher league and shouldn't work high school and use college philosophies should be unacceptable.

My comments were based on the personal attacks on others on the board that I have read. I haven't posted because I have chosen to read and not say anything. However, no where in my post did I ever personally criticize an opinion of another's post on a particular rule or play. I did, however; attempt to point out personal attacks on individuals on the board. Unfortunately, based on the lastest posts, some have missed the point entirely. Oh well. The power of the English language is strong and unfortunately some don't know how to use it.

I did comment that common sense on this particular rebounding play would tell me to call a foul. If A is standing out of bounds and the ball hits A, it is out on A, I understand, that is a rule!! I was merely talking about common sense on the particular rebound play that was posted by CREW!!! This is philosophy and not a rule situation!!!

All levels need officials. My comment to that was not to criticize a young college official that works both college and high school, even if he does apply NBA and/or NCAA philosophies (not rules) to that high school game. We need good officials no matter what level!!! Please do not misconstrue that rec ball officials are no good and higher level officials are!!! We need good rec ball officials and all the way on up to the highest league in the land.

I'm done with this now. Have a good day.

You're correct that the OOB goes to A because of the rule.

Similarly, BY RULE, any contact in this situation would be a foul on the rebounder, or nothing. You cannot BY RULE have a foul on the person on the floor under NFHS and College rules.

NF 4-23-1: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

NCAA 4-33-3: Same thing, slightly different wording.

Re: Why?
 

No, but had I been up there alone, I would have said "To buy tickets, see me." Only I can see myself (at least, grammatically, that is).

Re: game play situation #2
 

No, you're not criticizing anyone. :rolleyes:

Uhhhh! Multple exclamation points. You must really be pissed off. :(

So, you're saying that the NF doesn't give us any guidance with this type of play? It's totally up to the individual officiating the game? I suggest you read 4-23-1 and 10.6.1 E for a rule and a case play that are specifically on point.

Sure you are. :)

Re: game play situation #2
 

I think that you had better go back and read NFHS R4-S27 and NCAA R4-S37 (incidental contact) and well as the NFHS and NCAA sections on prinicple of verticality and securing a legal position on the floor.

Your comments concerning athletic play is not supported by the rules. ONe of the fundamental requirements of the rules is that a player must complete the entire play without making illegal contact. That player who leaves the floor must do so within the rules of the game. If A1 jumps out of his cylinder of verticality and lands on a B1 who is legally occupying a spot on the floor, then the responsibility to avoid contact is on A1. Common sense does not have anything to do with this play. The fact that he had to dodge or hurdle a player who is legally occupying a space on the floor is of no consequence. Either A1 can complete the play without making illegal contact with B1 or he cannot.

With regard to common sense it is of no consequence. Just because coaches, players and fans think this is a foul on A1 and not B1 is no reason for you to not apply the rules correctly. One of my favorite examples of the ignorance of the rules by coaches, players and fans is that they know that traveling is a violation but they do not know what is traveling.

And I have nothing against officials who officiate at many levels. Every year I will officiate between 350 and 400 games and they will range from boys' and girls' jr. H.S. to H.S. varsity, men's and women's small college and jr. college, Special Olympics, CYO boys' and girls', men's rec., and AAU and YBOA regional and national tournaments. That means that I have to officiate within the requirements of the level of the play involved. More importantly, the rules for players and H.S. age and younger are written with them in mind, it is not good officiating to apply concepts of officiating games played at the adult level to games played at the youth level.