crew's last game play situation

[ChuckElias]

crew's last game situation involved a blocked shot, after which the defender made contact with the shooter's body. The contact was not described as hard, but it was enough to knock the shooter to the floor.

It was strongly recommended that officials who desire to move up "no call" this play. The idea was that it might be ok to call in a HS school game, under NF rules, but that the big guys want us to let it go.

Last night, in the Kentucky/Duke game, with just under 30 seconds in regulation, this exact scenario occured. Duke player shot from the post; Kentucky guy came to help and cleanly blocked the shot; defender bumped the shooter, who then fell to the floor.

What was the official's reaction? This official who has "moved up" all the way to the top eschelon of D1 NCAA ball?

Tweet! Foul on the Kentucky defender. No offense, crew, but as we've all been trying to tell you and Eli, this play is a no-brainer. And we all just got proven right on national TV.

Great game, too. Fun to watch. It was probably almost as fun to officiate as my HS game last night. I had a great one, too.

Chuck

[DrakeM]

Chuck,
I don't believe Crew and Eli were saying that every time a defender gets ball and then contacts body, it is a no-call.
Rather to let the play develop, hold your whistle and see the consequence of the defenders action. If it merits a foul, by all means call one. And they are correct in saying that this type of play is one that supervisors at higher levels want refereed in that manner. They want blocked shots!
I remember sitting in camp listening to John Guthrie relate a story of how he had an offical working in the SEC that did not believe that Shaquille O'Neal could block a shot.
He said every time Shaq would block a shot, this official
would find something to call. After several attempts to
explain to this offical that blocked shots happen, and no change in the officials methods, he was let go.
I think bottom line is: When in Rome......
If your Supervisor wants it called a certain way, by all means, his is the Gospel Truth!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by DrakeM
Chuck,
I don't believe Crew and Eli were saying that every time a defender gets ball and then contacts body, it is a no-call.

And they are correct in saying that this type of play is one that supervisors at higher levels want refereed in that manner. They want blocked shots!

I'm going to have to disagree, Drake. If you go back to the thread and read the comments, it's clear that they think that as long as the block was clean up top, you should let slight contact on the body go; even if the slight contact knocks the shooter to the floor. Last night was the perfect example to show that this is not correct. Clean block, slight body contact, shooter falls -- foul! (And this was in a 1 or 2 point ball game with 8.8 seconds to go!!)

I will agree that you officiate the way your supervisor wants you to, in order to move up. But here's a guy who has obviously moved up to the premier leagues. To do that, we all agree that he has to call his game (to a certain extent) the way his supervisor(s) want it called. And he called a foul in the exact situation that crew and Eli told us should be a "no call".

For some reason, crew likes to throw out game situations and then give us twisted rationales for why we should not call them correctly. Last night we saw that the best officials in the country call it correctly.

Chuck

[DrakeM]

Chuck,
I didn't see the play, but I would think that normally the contact on a play like that would have to be pretty good for
the play to be called. I've worked with and been taught by enough "higher level" guys, and I have been told to call this play exactly as Crew and Eli have stated. And hey, we all make calls in certain situations that sometimes we wish we hadn't. (Not saying the official in last night's game is second guessing himself,) but, and correct me if I misspeak, usually at the end of games, we want fouls to be "top row, grandma" fouls.
i.e., grandma in the top row can call it.
I know that personally, I let "slight" contact on a blocked shot go.
What the definition of "slight" is, is subjective.
As Bill Clinton once said "That depends on what the definition of "is" is".

[BktBallRef]

Chuck is exactly correct. As soon as I saw the play at the end of last night's game, I replied to crew's post. The contact was not extreme or violent. According to the statements previously made by crew and eror39, they both would no-call the play last night. Or at least the say they would. I realize they're your buddies Drake but they said what they said. The evidence:

Originally posted by eroe39
In my opinion once the defender blocks the shot, secondary defender or not, contact after the block should not be considered a foul unless extremely violent. The blocked shot play to me is where you really see a difference between officials.

Actually, I would not have a foul on this play even in a junior high game.

As I stated before if the contact after the block is violent or severe I would have a foul.

Let me first reiterate that I believe the defender is allowed to make contact after the block, thus the contact does not affect the shot.

Originally posted by crew
i almost always consider the contact after the blocked shot incidental.

i would call this play the same on highschool and college level. you would not?

i am not eli but i will give my theory. if contact is made after the blocked shot and the contact is minimal(even if the shooter goes to floor), i would not call it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I did not see the play either but why should a player be rewarded for blocking a shot when he had to make illegal contact with the shooter to do it. Just because the player was able to block the shot up top does not give him immunity from making illegal contact with the shooter in his effort to block the shoot. The defender has to have control of his body at all times.

The school of thought that since the defender blocked that shoot, means to overlook the illegal body contact by the defender against the shooter is nothing more than style over substance. In other words, reward athleticsm over skill. I am sorry, it just does not wash. I do not even like to see that kind of horse manure in an NBA game because those players are supposed to be the best in the world.

[DrakeM]

BktBallRef,
I still will agree with Crew and Eli.
I think what is being brought out here is the willingness
by refs at higher levels than High School, to judge the affect contact has on a play. Does a hand check affect the quickness, speed and balance of the offensive player? If not, let it go. Does a hand in the back of a shooter driving to the basket affect the shot? If not, let it go. Does contact ("slight" or even severe) AFTER a shot has been blocked affect the play? In my opinion, no.
The shot has been blocked. To what disadvantage has the offensive man been placed? His shot has been cleanly blocked! Now if the contact by the defender prevents the shooter from a legitimate chance of getting the rebound, by all means, make the call. Mark, I agree that if the defender had to make illegal contact FIRST to block the shot, call the foul. But I think we're talking about clean block followed by minimal contact. Every play has a beginning, middle and end. The challenge is to keep this in mind and referee the WHOLE play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by DrakeM

I still will agree with Crew and Eli.

Imagine that.

The shot has been blocked. To what disadvantage has the offensive man been placed? His shot has been cleanly blocked!

So, if he swipes at the ball and misses it, you're going to call a foul if there's contact on the body. But if he does block the shot, you're going to let the contact go? That's the premise that you just proposed.

All that may be fine and dandy in the pro game. But not calling hand checking, a hand in the back on drives, or a foul on a blocked shot has no place in the high school game. Have you ever read the NF's Points of Emphasis? Officials such as yourself, crew, and eli causes the NF to have to address those types of issues every year in it's POE. Yet, such officials just continue on thier merry little way, destined to call what they won't to call.

In the state of NC, we're calling hand-checking strictly by the book and by the POE. Guess what? The players are adjusting and we're eliminating this problem from the game. You have no way of knowing whether a handcheck or a hand in the back is affecting the shooter or not. It's simply judgement. And when you don't know, you can't guess that it's not.

The play last night proves that such philosophies are just the work of a minority of individuals. That minority makes it very difficult for the majority who are calling the game by the rules, as it makes all of us look silly.

[DrakeM]

I guess if you consider the best 60 plus referees in the world the minority, then you're right.
While you may not like the NBA philosphy, NO ONE studies the game, how it is called and the effects of referees
actions more the NBA.
The POE's are very similar at all levels.
I think it's interesting that the Pro game is blamed for bringing a more physical style of play mentality to the other levels. I find it just the opposite.
The NBA is more concerned with not letting physical play get out of hand than other levels.
They even tried to implement the no-touch hand check rule.
Guess what, it may have stopped hand checking, but it wasn't good for the game. That's why they dropped it.
You mention that in your area the handcheck is a POE and the player adjust. Great! Players will adjust to other styles as well.
I agree when you say there is no way of telling whether a hand in the back affects a shot, and that it's our judgement.
But isn't that what we're out there for. To make judgements?
Your turn.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by DrakeM
I guess if you consider the best 60 plus referees in the world the minority, then you're right.
While you may not like the NBA philosphy, NO ONE studies the game, how it is called and the effects of referees
actions more the NBA.

I don't disagree. I've always agreed with you that they are the best officials in the world. But that doesn't mean their priniciples should apply at the HS and college level.

I think it's interesting that the Pro game is blamed for bringing a more physical style of play mentality to the other levels. I find it just the opposite.
The NBA is more concerned with not letting physical play get out of hand than other levels.

Which is why the style of play promoted by Pat Riley and the NY Knicks in the mid-90's was quickly stopped. Remember the 1994 and 1995 NBA Playoffs. Nobody watch because the play was so rough and un-entertaining. Philosophies such as the one proposed by crew are creating the same problems in HS ball.

They even tried to implement the no-touch hand check rule.
Guess what, it may have stopped hand checking, but it wasn't good for the game. That's why they dropped it.

That's good. But that doesn't mean it should be dropped as a POE in HS.

You mention that in your area the handcheck is a POE and the player adjust. Great! Players will adjust to other styles as well.

Ah, no. That's a NFHS POE, not a NC POE.

I hear complaints quite often about the rough play in high school ball and obvious fouls not being called.

I agree when you say there is no way of telling whether a hand in the back affects a shot, and that it's our judgement.
But isn't that what we're out there for. To make judgements?
Your turn.

I'm afraid we've abused that judgment to the point that the NF is saying, "Call the foul. It's a foul. Stop rationalizing and call it a foul."

Catch ya later!

[Mark Dexter]

If NFHS didn't want us to call hand checks fouls, it wouldn't have been a POE from sometime in the 60's to the present day .

I get so much sh*t for calling hand check fouls in the intramural leagues, even when the shot is clearly effected. Oh, well. Just gives me more ammo for T's.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by DrakeM
I guess if you consider the best 60 plus referees in the world the minority, then you're right.
While you may not like the NBA philosphy, NO ONE studies the game, how it is called and the effects of referees
actions more the NBA.

Drake, I'll agree with you that the NBA refs are probably the best officials in the world (although a couple of the top NCAA guys may be better than a couple of the worst NBA guys). But they call the game the way the NBA brass wants it called. They call it differently from the way the NCAA or the NF wants it called. So using them as an example for how we should officiate our games is going to get us into a lot of trouble.

I think it's interesting that the Pro game is blamed for bringing a more physical style of play mentality to the other levels. I find it just the opposite.

This is frankly laughable. The pro game is NOT responsible for the increased level of physical play at lower levels? Come on! Did I miss the little somewhere? While the NBA has in recent seasons attempted to cut down on the physical play within the league, the reason they've had to do that is b/c they had allowed it to get completely out of hand. The refs called almost nothing in the post until the offensive player had the ball. The defender was allowed to handcheck the dribbler all the way up the court. The "hard foul" was considered good defense against an easy bucket. All this CRAP filtered down thru the NCAA and into HS. To deny it is not defensible. Players -- and officials -- saw this on TV and starting playing -- and, sadly, officiating -- the same way. That's why the NF POEs include handchecking and rough play again. Last season, our NCAA assignors practically BEGGED us to call handchecking in the open court and backcourt. And that's why we have to call the "arm-bar" now, b/c the NBA allows it.

If you were really just kidding, then I apologize for over-reacting. Please tell me you were just kidding.

The NBA is more concerned with not letting physical play get out of hand than other levels.
They even tried to implement the no-touch hand check rule.
Guess what, it may have stopped hand checking, but it wasn't good for the game. That's why they dropped it.

I think you're wrong again, Drake. They dropped it b/c it wasn't good for RATINGS. They all do it, so the refs have to call it, and the players didn't adjust. It made for too many whistles, and too many stars on the bench in the second quarter, which makes for ugly TV. Since the NBA is entertainment as much as it is a sports league, this is very bad.

You're not going to agree with me, which is ok, b/c all this stuff is not why I started this thread. The beginning of this thread is what it's all about for me. The big time refs call the game right.

Chuck

[DrakeM]

Always the cynic.
Chuck,
I guess I'm just trying to respond to what I percieve is a
lack of willingness to accept different philsophies,
(Or at least the existence thereof)as effective ways of refereeing a ball game.
You're correct when you say the NBA has had to clamp down.
The basketball in the 70's and 80's with the Bad Boy Pistons,
hard fouls etc. was, I'm sure a concern.
I'm talking about my own experience however when I say I feel that they have done more to try and curb excessive physical play than any other level.
Most people who post on this site are intelligent and all have valid points. I enjoy that. Even if they are different than mine. As long as we don't get personal, we all can learn from each other.
Peace.

P.S. Brad, if you happen to check this thread out,
see if you can get Jimmie to give us his input on this particular scenario. What is he taught at his level?
Thanks

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am with BkbBallRef on this one. The game is not athleticism alone it is a combination of skill, brains, and athleticism. In any endeavor, raw talent alone is not enough. That talent must be tempered by skill and brains (which is aquired by hard work and practice).

[DrakeM]

Hey, how many more posts before we make the "Hot Topic" thread?