No calls come with experience

[bigwhistle]

As there is a tremendous disparity among the posters on this site, (i.e. very young in officiating all the way to long time whistle blowers.......and junior high all the way to D1) I would like to submit the proposal for conversation that [B] the higher you move up in officiating has a direct correlation to what you learn NOT to call....that is, the better you are at making the "no-call", the more likely you will be to advance in your career. [B]

I mean by this that as experience is gained, the official who is advancing will learn to differentiate the "letter of the law" in the rule book from the intent and advantage gained in the particular game being called. Knowing the rules is essential.....Knowing how and when to enforce them makes and breaks careers.

[JRutledge]

You also have to have a very good sense of handling hostile or complicated situations with complicated people. You have to be able to sell the coaches, players and fans that you have things under control. I would not say it is just simply what you do with your calls, but how you handle yourself with all the little stuff.

I think it is a little more important about what you are willing to call or not willing to call, when the game is on the line. Are you still focused and competent when the whole world seems against you? Or do you crack and fade when the tension mounts.

The best officials I have seen, always keep a even demeanor. They stay the same when the game is a blowout, or it is a buzzer beater. And yes what you call can help determine that, but how are you handling the calls.

Ed Rush, Director of NBA Officials, told me personally that the type of pressure experiences that an official has had in the past in a competitive arena (like playing basketball at the college and pros) is a major factor in who they choose to become NBA officials. And the more of these situations that you have been in, help them determine if you are viable canidate to become an NBA Official. Not just a focus on what you call or did not call in specific situations.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
As there is a tremendous disparity among the posters on this site, (i.e. very young in officiating all the way to long time whistle blowers.......and junior high all the way to D1) I would like to submit the proposal for conversation that the higher you move up in officiating has a direct correlation to what you learn NOT to call....that is, the better you are at making the "no-call", the more likely you will be to advance in your career.

I mean by this that as experience is gained, the official who is advancing will learn to differentiate the "letter of the law" in the rule book from the intent and advantage gained in the particular game being called. Knowing the rules is essential.....Knowing how and when to enforce them makes and breaks careers.

I don't disagree with you. That's why I've started distancing myself from specifically replying to any of crew's most recent GPS posts.

But I do find it amazing that those officials who are supposed to know when to "make a no-call," find it necessary to call a foul on a player for getting stepped on. That's just ridiculous.

[rockyroad]

OK Tony, you lost me on this...what did I miss about getting stepped on being a foul???

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rockyroad
OK Tony, you lost me on this...what did I miss about getting stepped on being a foul???

From crew's "game plat situation #2"

" 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."

"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."

Therefore, I can only determine that it's a foul to get stepped on.

BTW, I still don't know what the h*ll a "plat" is.

[daves]

I agree with Bigwhistle. In the early years of my officiating I was very quick with the whistle. I used to call a lot of blocked shots as fouls. I was talking about this last night in our rookie meeting. We talked about holding the whistle a little longer,especially on shots. Also the concept of not all contact is a foul. I think when an official learns these concepts they will take the next step and move up.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
As there is a tremendous disparity among the posters on

I mean by this that as experience is gained, the official who is advancing will learn to differentiate the "letter of the law" in the rule book from the intent and advantage gained in the particular game being called. Knowing the rules is essential.....Knowing how and when to enforce them makes and breaks careers.

For me it is knowing what advantage/disadvantage really is. The rules are there as guides to help in judging advantage/disadvantage.

IMHO - One should also realize that much of the discourse is due to different personalities. The Mrs. has a black and white view of the world. She has been a swim judge for 25-30 years, and is still as strict as one can be on stroke and turn mechanics. I am a many shades of gray person and as such I would never, never, never, want her as a partner on a BB court.

[SoCalRef]

BigWhistle,
Sounds good. However, with my mere 4 years of experience spread out between HS Varsity Boys/Girls and JC games I have found out that when working with a partner who decides to make a no-call I will ask them why they decided to make the no-call. I do this in order to continue to learn from each game and to pick the brain of the "VETERAN" partner so that I may pass on the knowledge.

[williebfree]

Originally posted by RecRef

For me it is knowing what advantage/disadvantage really is. The rules are there as guides to help in judging advantage/disadvantage.

IMHO - One should also realize that much of the discourse is due to different personalities. The Mrs. has a black and white view of the world. She has been a swim judge for 25-30 years, and is still as strict as one can be on stroke and turn mechanics. I am a many shades of gray person and as such I would never, never, never, want her as a partner on a BB court.

Very well said!

BTW: What "color" are your children?

[Doug]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
But I do find it amazing that those officials who are supposed to know when to "make a no-call," find it necessary to call a foul on a player for getting stepped on. That's just ridiculous.

YES! I was at a camp this summer, it was a high school varstiy up to D1 level camp. They did talk about no calls and when to make them. I have papers with that information on them, but in a clinitioned game (clinitioned by a 10 yr D1 official, state toureny, the works...) a 3 point shot went up, and while the shooter was still in "the act" his defender accidently stepped on his foot, it was the smallest contact, and I did not feel that the shooter was placed at a disadvantage because of it! But, my partner called the foul, basket was good, and we went to the line! The clinition told the reff that his call was a good one, I have wondered about it ever since, is it just me, or is that not right?

[BktBallRef]

Sounds like a no call to me, Doug.

[BBarnaky]

I agree that great officials are even mannered and are very steady throughout. That is, their emotions, mind, and body stay steady throughout without wavering up and down in a game. The key is a high level of concentration the entire time, which is extremely difficult to maintain. One that can concentrate and focus during tense situations are the inidividuals that will succeed.

As to the comments about the GPS play with a rebounder coming to the floor and unable to land because a player is on the ground, I still stand by my earlier statements, crews, and eroe39's that a foul is the best call on that play. Again, have an open mind to another person's philosophy and experience, although you might not agree, there is no reason to berate them for it. As I don't believe anybody has berated comments about earlier comments that "all players are entitled to any spot on the floor." My question is, "what are they entitled to?" Standing, sitting, kneeling, laying down, standing on their head, having a drink, eating??" I believe the intent of the rule is that they are entitled to a position on the floor resulting in an athletic basketball type of movement on the floor and not lying on the ground.

[crew]

[B[

Originally posted by Doug
[/B]

YES! I was at a camp this summer, it was a high school varstiy up to D1 level camp. They did talk about no calls and when to make them. I have papers with that information on them, but in a clinitioned game (clinitioned by a 10 yr D1 official, state toureny, the works...) a 3 point shot went up, and while the shooter was still in "the act" his defender accidently stepped on his foot, it was the smallest contact, and I did not feel that the shooter was placed at a disadvantage because of it! But, my partner called the foul, basket was good, and we went to the line! The clinition told the reff that his call was a good one, I have wondered about it ever since, is it just me, or is that not right?

doug,
i will try to address this foul as best i can. severity of contact with regards to fouls lessen the farther out a shooter is. i.e. on a layup a player can take a slight hit on the arm and still play through successfully without warranting a foul.(on a layup or dunk it is good to hold your whistle to see if the contact affected the attempt. if a1 misses then it is ok to have a late whistle.) but the farther away the shooter is the contact has more of an impact on the shot.(the nba players are mastering this skill-they will try to tap the shooters elbow slightly to throw off the shot instead of trying for a legit block attempt.) now in your play above if the defender stepped on the offensive players foot prior to release of the ball it would be good to call this a foul.
try to think of it as shooting a gun. from 25 yrds the scope could be right on the money. but from 100yrds the shot could be off an inch or 2. the room for error lessens the farther out you shoot. i hope i made this a bit more clear, though i fear i have rambled and made it worse.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by BBarnaky
As I don't believe anybody has berated comments about earlier comments that "all players are entitled to any spot on the floor." My question is, "what are they entitled to?" Standing, sitting, kneeling, laying down, standing on their head, having a drink, eating??" I believe the intent of the rule is that they are entitled to a position on the floor resulting in an athletic basketball type of movement on the floor and not lying on the ground.

Then you would be wrong.

Nobody has berated me for making comments "all players are entitled to any spot on the floor," because the comment and the play came directly from the NFHS Rule Book and Case Book.

10.6.1E
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.

By your "philosophy," you would call a foul. But it would seem that the NF has addressed the intent of the rule. Although you may not like the answer, they have answered your question as well.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by williebfree

BTW: What "color" are your children?

ROTFL