I have a fever, and the only prescription is...more rebar! Hmm... :confused:

In your case, wouldn't a paperclip do the trick?

Actually, I was kidding.

Geeze, do I have to put a smilie on everything? You're as bad as Dan. No wonder Juulie and I get sooooooo frustrated.

Will this help?

http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Word...umor_setup.gif

I'm not arguing whether the play is right or wrong. I want everyone to discuss their way of processing this play and other plays. I feel that the way we process plays sometimes need to be revised. Saying, "I'm not calling such and such because A1 did this or did that and that is a stupid play" is not a justifiable answer in why we call or no call plays. I'm not saying I haven't done it because I have but I am working on getting that out of my processing.



Old School,

I believe it is great that you came to the same conclusion as most people with the Duncan,Nash block/charge play, but as I have written above the way you process the play, in accordance with the NBA, is wrong. They don't process plays like that. They determine (on this particular play) if the play originates in the LDB (which it did), once they determine that, they decide whether the defensive player is in position and perpendicular to the player's path before the shooting motion of the offensive player starts (it was close). If he was... offensive foul, if he wasn't.... block, if it's a tie.... block. I believe it was a tie, therefore you had the block call.

Everybody has different ways of processing plays, and with your way it makes it sound like this play and any other play similar to this would be a block. What if Nash gets there a half second earlier. Are you still going to call a block because that kind of play might cause injury? I'm not being condescending like some people are with you. I am asking a legitimate question and would like and respect a legitimate answer.

Watching a lot of NBA games, and even charting things from a spectator's view (which is the only one any of us on this forum can have) isn't the same as "studying". To really understand the NBA, you'd have to actually hear from them why and why not they call and don't call things.

The reasons they don't do things the same as the NFHS have little or nothing to do with the sizes of the players, and especially not with "protectiing" the big players or little players. The move that "Steve" didn't do again was illegal not because it "threatened" the big player, but because he didn't establish his position legally. The definition of legal position is different in the NBA and the NFHS, but the principle of legal position is the same -- and it isn't based on who's going to get hurt.

Yeah, that would just be a stupid way of deciding a call. Good thing officials don't do that, huh.

I know I, for one, am never going to be able to watch and NBA game again. Now, I need to figure out what to do with the extra hour next year. Maybe I'll shine my boots or something productive.

I know what you mean. I've got an extra 45 minutes of leisure time now too.

Just to set the record straight:

"Donaghy could have influenced the overs simply by calling more fouls. There have been reports that he topped the league in technical fouls called, but the NBA said Monday he ranked in the lower half of technicals called in each of the last two seasons."

I copied this out of an article on MSN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...rtstatsdonaghy

An article that shows some of the trends in Donaghy's games. A few key quotes here:

In 2006-07, Donaghy refereed 73 games. In those contests, the two teams combined to score 201.37 points and the average over/under was 187.9 points, a difference of more than 13 points per game.

"Vegas is too good for that to happen," Bell said. "The standard range should be somewhere around five or six, maybe. Not 10 or 13."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the start of the 2007 calendar year, Bell said, there were 10 straight games in which Donaghy was part of the officiating crew and the point spread moved a point and a half or more before tip-off, indicating big money had been wagered on the game. In those 10 contests, according to Bell, the big money won all 10 times. Pretty damaging evidence there
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the two years in question, teams in Donaghy's games hit the over 57% of the time, in the two years before the years in question, teams in Donaghy's games hit the over only 44% of the time. (my summary, not quote from article)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as interesting are the numbers from April 15 to the postseason. During that stretch, there were eight games in which Donaghy was part of the officiating crew and the line moved more than a point and a half before the tip, Bell said. And in those games, including over/under bets and win/loss wagers, the big money was just 2-7.

From the last quote it at least seems like he didn't try to influence any pivitol games towards the end of the season and into the playoffs.

I was not trying to give you an NBA answer because I do not know the details because i do not work in the NBA. However, one big difference in the rules sets that I have noticed is the before the shooting motion starts for the pros. Also, that was not my only reason. I had several reasons but I leaned towards making a statement, don't want this kind of crap happening in my games. I have seen HS plays where the defense just runs right underneath the offensive player and it be an offensive foul simply because the defense got there first. That's got to be one of the dumbest rules in the Fed. code. The pro's take into consideration the offensive player and where's he's at within his movement towards the bucket. If his final movement or motion has started, defense is too late. I agree with this code. Why, because they don't consider that playing good defense, whereas in HS it is taugh. The end result of the play is always a nasty collision and the offensive player gets the brunt of it. If you have ever had someone run underneath your feet while you are airborne or about to go airbonre is one of the scariest feeling you will ever have on the court. The code in HS doesn't take into consideration the safty of the offensive player. There is nothing the offensive player can do in this situation. He/she is going down and they are going down hard.

I appreciate this, not very many officials out here have a personality. They are great with the code, but leave little to be desired when it comes to debating the code or engaging someone who disagrees with them. See above for my reasoning and i would probably still have a block on Steve Nash, but now, if Amare did this. This play is going to look completely different.

If you don't know NBA rules and philosophies, how can you comment on them?

Are you saying as long as an official has a personality, they don't need know "the code" as well? In your second statement, you say other officials know the rules, but they aren't good at debating them with you, when you disagree with them? Let me get this straight - they are great with the rules, and you disagree with them; so what does that say about your knowledge of the rules?

You rarely answer my questions when I pose them directly towards you. How come you don't want to debate rules and philosophies with me when I disagree with you?


One player does something, the call goes one way, another player does the same thing, and the call will be different?

...sigh...

Of course...remember you have to protect the smaller player, right old school..

You can't run underneath the offensive player and still have gotten there first.

That's not the rule.

You need to revisit the definitions section of the NFHS rulebook, particularly the definition of Guarding, particularly "4.23.d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.."

For a small fee, and a few hours perusal, the NFHS can set you free from this ignorance.

Buy a rule book. Read it. Learn it. Live it.

Comments are not a factual statement, they are just that, comments.


Perfect case of over analyzing what is stated. Must be something in the water, or the kool-aid.

I will debate rules knowledge with you, what is your question. BTW, I have learned a lot engaging you in discussion. Hopefully you have learned something as well.

ROTFLMAO!!

I must admit, OS, in the past I've felt you should be banned from the board, but now I'm not sure. If you were gone, where would I get my laughs for the day??

Okay, you asked for it. This comment... Okay, here's the deal. Back when this rule was written, basketball was mainly played by slower Caucasian athletes. Now that the athletism and speed of the athlete has increased twofold, that's double the speed of when this rule was written. In order to tell if the defense got there first, we need instant replay. I'm looking for when his foot left the floor as opposed to when the defender got set. Almost impossible to do in this day and age. At best, you are guessing in HS if it is close. Go back and review that video that we discussed at great length.

http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8578135c.html

The NBA acknowledge the shortcomings here, where there is many. The ability for the referee to get this call right, the safety of the players involved, and the notion that running underneath a player about to score with the ball is considered good defensive strategy. NOT! Add everything up, we only need the offensive player to have started his final motion or movement to the basket. This will aid the referee to successfully make the right judgment call. Looking for when the offensive players feet left the floor as oppsed to the defenders feet getting set is ridiculous. Things are happening way too fast for me to adequately see all that. The defense can either go for the shot block or the ball, or get the hell out the way. Going for the block and causing a collision, is whacked!!!!

could someone please post that link to the OS-English translation tool? I can't seem to find it.

I get it. We need separate rule books for the white players and the black players.

That might just be the absolute stoopidest thing ever posted on this forum. And considering the number of stoopid posts that you've made, that's sureashell saying something.

Now we know. Old School is Jimmy the Greek.

babelfish.altavista.com

For OS-related verbiage, I think you also need an officiating philosophy translator as well.

Now that's you putting your spin on it. I said "ATHLETES" are faster, stronger today. That includes, white, black, asian, mexican, chinese, japaneses, and the list goes on. Athletes are faster today then when that rule was written. We can barely referee a high school game now with just 2 officials. Fed rules have not kept up with the day and age we live in. We keep trying to force rules that where written 40, 50 years ago into todays athlete. The game was played completely different back when those rules where written. I doubt that very many people could dunk the ball when that rule was written. Change can be good sometimes JR. We should try to make it better instead of just excepting the way it is.

Again, written with no real knowledge at all of rules-writing.

The rules--NFHS, NCAA & NBA-- have all been amended, altered, revised, etc. <b>every</b> single year going back 50 years. The rules have constantly changed, and are constantly changing, at all levels to keep pace with how the game is changing. If you'd ever read a damn rulebook in your life, you might have known that.

It's sadly apparent that your total knowledge of the rules was gained from watching television. It's even sadder that it doesn't stop you from posting about something that you know absolutely nothing about.

Accepting.

Please please please learn the language. You are frustrating me.

It's like watching Larry the Cable Guy debate, well, anyone. You already know who's going to win, but the trainwreck itself is entertainment. Now, who's got the popcorn?

Old School:

PLEASE, PLEASE go away and never come back. You do not know anything about the rules of basketball whether it is NFHS, NCAA, Men's/Women's, FIBA, or NBA/WNBA. Every time you post you show everybody how ignorant of the rules of basketball you are. You are just making a fool of yourself.

MTD, Sr.

Yeah, that is going to convince him. ;)

Peace

No, from playing the games, being in the trenches.

Damn keyboard....:D

Actually, you should be saying "damn brain".:mad:

Not bad, OS, not bad!

Shouldn't you say "Damn keybored"? :rolleyes:

Or how much more I understand the rules then you.

You make yourself look bad when you say I know nothing. You are trying way to hard to convince yourself, and to be honest, I don't think I'm worth all the trouble. Believe me when i say this though, I know enough about the rules to be very dangerous.

NOW THAT IS SOMETHING WITH WHICH WE CAN ALL AGREE!

I know guys...it is easy to hit it out of the park when it is a slow fat one right in the wheel house :D

The saying does go, "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous".

Three good belly laughs in one day!! Thanks, OS!

That's right. I'd completely forgotten how "brillant" you are. :rolleyes:

Plus, you have a better command of the language than we do.

I found it very refreshing because you don't hear this type of talk too often. Another thing, Mike is retired, so now the NBA can't do too much to him anymore. Unfortunately, the way this business is, officials don't often speak freely for fear of being blackballed. I loved it and listen to every detail. For instance, the officiating has either just maintained or gotten worse. I totally agree and hears the reason why. Spurs vs. Suns series. Let me preference my comment with these two teams where the best men's teams in the NBA/World for this past season, and they where legit. This was a super challenge for any crew of officials. With that being said, the NBA prouds themselves as being the best in the world, in the best shape, bah, bah, bah.... The level of play was very high in this series, yet the officiating appeared to be behind the whole series. They where getting every 3rd incident. They miss calls because they couldn't keep up, not because they where bad, plus the Suns did something the NBA has never seen before. They would shoot the ball in 7 seconds, and that was a team strategy. The Spurs where good enough legitimately to challenge that strategy and they bought it right back at em, great basketball to watch. This is perhaps the best NBA series of all time because of this stragety. The ref's where lost in transition, imho. It confirms what Mike stated in that I don't feel they where ready, mentality or physically to referee at that level. They mixed crews too, but I didn't see much improvement crew to crew.

I will also say this. The crew that worked the Final Four championship game appeared to me to be too slow, just like in the Spurs series. When the officials are struggling to keep up, they start reaching for calls

You're kidding me. The best referees in the world can't keep up with the pace? Trust me, they can keep up. The pace was not too fast for them.


BOISEBALL:

Yeah the reason you don't see so many of those "phantom calls" in the college game is because if you don't get KILLED then you don't have a foul. College refs, imo, miss more plays on the side of no calls that should have been blown, whereas NBA refs miss more plays by blowing their whistle on plays that should have been no calls, but then again NBA guys have more accountability and know that if they don't blow the whistle they will be fired, whereas college refs don't get every play charted and i.e., if a team who is up 20+ in a game drives to the hole and gets hit, with no doubt in anyones mind, the ref can pass on it and most will say that it was a good pass because that team is up 20. In the league, you don't have that luxury. If it was an illegal hit then you owe it to the crew and the game to have a foul regardless of score and time.

Check the stats, NBA refs get more plays right than, say, refs in the Big 10. Oh wait you can't check that, the Big 10, along with the rest of Div. 1 conferences don't chart plays. Regardless, I think if they had, NBA refs would have more plays called correct even with Hank Nichols judging what is and what is not a foul.

There's no question about it - you are brillant!!!

This is completely absurd, and frankly insulting. What was the big complaint from the '07 NCAA championship game? They didn't let Oden play. Boo-hoo-hoo. They actually called fouls against him. And he didn't maim anybody. A couple of those foul calls were light contact but caused an advantage, and they got called.

I'll agree with that.

But this is not the reason for your previous statement. The reason NCAA officials have more bad no-calls is that they're trained that way. If you don't KNOW, don't blow. It's not because they're not held accountable, it's because they taught that their bad calls should be no-calls. When you don't blow the whistle, the game goes on. But when you blow the whistle and you're wrong, the whole game stops, everybody looks at you and you give everybody a chance to chirp at you. You might not agree with that philosophy, but that's what's taught. Of course, they want to get it right every time, but we all know that's impossible. So if you're going to make mistakes, it's better (in the NCAA's thinking) to keep the game moving.

I think you will find that with everything being taped and passed along to assignors, that way of thinking is changing. "The subs deserve the same officiating as the starters got".

That is not entirely true. I agree that the NBA officials are scrutinized more than anyone, but to say someone the Big 10 does not have to get a play right in a 20+ margin game is a little disingenuous. The NBA can find out if they have a call wrong during halftime. Do not think for a second with millions of dollars on the line the officials in the Big 10 and even the smaller conferences are not scrutinizing their officials heavily. Most of the time we never hear about it official screw-ups or know if any action was taken by a conference. All a coach has to do is complain about a single call and the play is reviewed. I would say that a game at the D1 level just does not have the immediate feedback as the NBA, but they will hear about situations if they screw them up.

I do not know that I would go that far either. Let us remember that many of the NBA officials are not that experienced over all. Many NBA officials have been officiating less than 10 years of experience before they do their first game in the league. I agree many are very good, but many are not as good as many of the top D1 guys. So depending on whom you talk to, that opinion might not be widely held. Also understand the philosophies between D1 and the NBA is also very different. We really cannot judge officials from different levels on the very same merits.

Peace

Why am I not surprised??

What I find amazing is that you got one clown who's never done anything except some low level rec league ball in his life, and another young official that's never done a high school varsity game in his life either afaik, yet they're both pontificating mightily about the competency of the top NCAA and NBA officials. What's wrong with this picture?:rolleyes:

Lah me.....

I understand what you are saying, but officials at the NBA level, once again, don't have the luxury of making their "bad calls" no calls. They also have to be certain of their plays as well. IMO, what is considered marginal contact in college is way different than what is marginal contact in the NBA. IMO, perimeter play is way too "handsy" in the college games. Guys are getting re-routed, impeded, chucked, etc. Same with cutters. How much of that do you see go uncalled in the pro game vs. college game? That's why when these guys come to summer league or pre-draft camp there are 60 to 70 fouls in a game. Difference in philosophy? Yes, but if that's not addressed in the pro game then we have a fight. College kids are not getting paid with bonuses for winning a certain amount of games, making it to the playoffs, etc. so they don't worry about it as much I guess.

Personally, I am an aggressive referee and err on the side of blowing the whistle rathering than sucking on plays. Don't get me wrong I have to be sure of what I'm calling. My aggressiveness is why I favor the pro game. They want you to be aggressive, whereas I don't believe college is so much like that.

Where do you get that information from? I've done HS varsity and more. I don't have to explain myself to you though. I am sorry I haven't been alive half as long as the amount of years you have been in the profession. You are an assignor, right. Maybe you are like the supervisors in the NBA that this Mike Mathis guy has been talking about. Maybe you just couldn't hack it so you got into the only other thing basketball officiating could provide you...supervising. It hurts doesn't it? So why do that to others? I don't do it to be mean, I do it to illustrate a point. You are a grumpy old man. why must we talk about this? Why do you even bring up experience? If you don't like what any of us have to say, then just say so. You don't have to attack anyone's experience level.

BTW, if you want to know what I work just ask Chuck Elias. We recently met. He seems like a great guy and I wish I could have sat and talked with him more.

I know more about you than you know, Ben, believe me. It's a joke when somebody with your experience and rules knowledge starts to critique officials at the D1 and NBA levels.

At the start of the season that just ended, you admitted that you've never done a high school game in your life at any level- Frosh, JV, whatever. And I hate to break it to you, but doing a low level D3 or JC game because no one else is available in the afternoon is not the same as doing D1 ball .
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...877#post334877
Now all of a sudden you've done HS varsity and more. What is "more"? D1? NBA? Maybe you should build up a little spit in your whistle before you start expounding at how good or bad officials are at levels that you can only dream of attaining. Hell, it's probably a good idea if you learn a few basics rules first- like maybe that you can't call a "T" on a player who has rattled the board while making a legitimate attempt at a block.
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...891#post358891

If you want to "illustrate points", maybe you should actually learn those points first. Don't let that stop you, and Old School, from telling us what's wrong with D1 and NBA officials though.

Here's a little advice for you. You can learn a lot more listening than talking. Feel free to ignore that though because whatthehell does a grumpy old man know anyway.

The one thing we can count on is when JR dresses someone down. Not only did he make a comment about a certain person’s comments, he showed the darn posts that the comments were made. I am scared of you JR. Damn that was good. It kind of puts all the comments into a different light. I was not even paying attention that closely. I guess I need to read more posts on this board. :D

Peace

I think you will find that this is changing. I agree that it was often taught to not blow your whistle on flops or many blocked shots to the basket. That is kind of changing at least at the camps I have recently attended. It seems like they want the whistle blown when bodies are hitting the floor. One of the major problems with trying to compare all D1 with the NBA is the fact that there are fewer NBA officials. D1 has probably a little over a 1000 referees that work a D1 game (that number might be high, but work with for a second ;)). Each conference has a different supervisor for the most part and what one conference might expect is not the same in another conference. Remember many of the newer officials at the NBA level have never worked games equivalent to the NBA before they were hired. I will agree that many of the officials in the NBA are very, very good, but I would suggest that many are not fully ready from a standpoint of just plain experience and making enough mistakes. Even though I did not agree with everything Mathis said about the NBA officials, but some of what he said had merit.

Peace

I had this come up in a game this past weekend. The coach was upset because his player took a running six-footer and the opponent took a big swipe trying to block the shot, but missed the ball and smacked the backboard. The ball hit the board, the ring, and then bounced off.

The coach first complained to my partner who was the Trail on the play, and then later asked me during a FT if the rule on hitting the backboard had changed. I told him that it had not and that as long as the player makes a legitimate attempt to block the shot that there is nothing wrong with the play. He replied that they don't call it that way in California. :eek:

Agree with that. And to expand on it, the officials within a conference are different also. Different personalities; different ideas on officiating; different tolerance levels, different ideas sometimes on how much contact to allow, etc. Jmo but I don't think that you're ever going to be able to regiment your training/evaluation down to where everything can be called exactly the same. I think that it's more reasonable to ask if any particular game was called fairly and evenly and kept under control while doing so. More often than not, the players/teams decide what kind of game that we're going to have, and we just follow along doing the best that we can.

Again, jmo but I think that NBA officiating is entertainment based, and that's why it's hard to compare the over-all effectiveness of their officiating staff with that of a top NCAA D1 conference. They're two different animals, with different rules and different goals. And that doesn't really make one set of officials markedly better than the other. I do wonder sometimes if the NBA expects too much from their officials.

Jmo, based on my impressions and not that much actual knowledge of the current NBA training/evaluation program......:)

Your estimate is pretty good. For documented support, Referee Magazine put the figure at approximately 900 for NCAA D1 Womens officials on page 61 of its July 2007 issue.

Interesting article this morning citing other NBA referees....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...e-fixing_N.htm

They don't seem to be happy with the current NBA system, which was my impression from afar also. One interesting quote was the one about NBA guidelines directing officials to make calls all over the court.

Here's another one......
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...-reviews_N.htm.
Many observers are high school and college referees. Hmmmmmm.....

They are all just bitter.

They all can't be bitter, but very few seem to have positive things to say. The idea of calling all over the court is being mis-represented. The NBA, which I agree, has a philosophy that each official has a different angle of the play and that when a foul occurs, the best angle to see the foul could be the off-official (non-prmiary area official) because the play/foul turned right into their clear-line-of-sight vision provided their in proper NBA court position. I saw a WNBA game yesterday, where the C had a great call, where the post player swung away from the lead, and the contact occured in the C's line of vision but out of their NCAA primary coverage area. You may not agree with it, but it's how 3-person officiating should be, imho. It's not perfect, but it's better than not allowing an official that would have had the best angle to see the play to not call it (or even look in that area) because it is out of their primary coverage area.

One arguement that NCAA/HS coaches have is that officials in their leagues can't make a call outside of their PCA area even though they may have saw the violation.

Great discussion guys after my #139 post. Scrapper1, thank you for this anology. It makes a lot of sense, and I think it is being deployed in the NBA as well. But just like BTaylor said, because the NBA looks at every play/call/no-call, NBA officials are under bigger scrutiny. It is still worth reading to me because it strengthens my belief that if you are not sure, you got no call. Better to let the game continue on then to reach and be wrong. I must admit, I have been there where the game was faster than I could keep up with. Maybe that's what happened in the Spurs-Suns game, but the fact that it happened more often than not, leaves a bad impression on the NBA officials.

One note Scrapper1, that can not go unchallenged. If any NCAA crew continues to miss calls, like in the Spurs-Suns series. They will be in deep do-do. We can let one or two go by, but it needs to stay at a relatively low number. What happened in the championship NCAA Men's game, is the officials got lucky. One team was way better than the other. It gave them room for error, and there was plenty. However, if that game would have been close, it would have been a completely different story with the NCAA officials on that game.

Nobody has the "luxury" of making bad calls. But they happen at every level. The NCAA (in general) says, "We'd rather have you miss a marginal call than whistle a bad marginal call." That's not luxury, that's just a difference in opinion from what you say happens at the NBA level (which I've never done, obviously).

I don't mean to insult you, but you're kidding yourself if you think "big money" is not an issue in the college game. The players aren't getting it (legally, anyway); but coaches and the schools themselves are fighting for their cut of $1 billion every year.

I don't think it's about being aggressive or not, personally. I think it's about getting plays right.

Very good point. I was talking in general terms, but you're exactly right about this particular type of play. Lots of observers will say, when bodies get tangled and go down, we have to have a whistle. I don't always agree with that, but that is one play that many people would rather have a marginal whistle than a marginal no-call.

I really wish we could get could do something about you account. You can't get out of your own way can you? You are like Terrel Owens, great at what you do, but.....

It is NOT illegal to share your opinion on this forum. By these two individuals pontificating as you put it, a very decent discussion has sprung. I for one, have learned more from this discussion and interaction, then reading in a damn rule book. Of course, I don't expect you to understand that but sometimes, I really wish you would stop with the personal attacks, and just pass on the discussion and let us nobody's talk and debate on this forum. Maybe it doesn't help you but others (like myself) may get some benefit from it.

Moderators, it should be illegal to continuously personally attack others on this forum. To use this forum and the data within it, to belittle and berate other officials or forum members should be outlawed. Posts #148 should not be allowed. That is abusing this forum and the data in it. This culture of attacking one another over and over again has produced a lot of unhappy officials. Just look at the number of retired NBA officials that have nothing nice to say about the enterprise that they served for years. From engaging this forum alone, which is a good representation of official associations around the country. I have nothing good to say about the senior leadership here.

Added sentence to post #148.

Have a nice day....

See, Jurassic, it's your fault there are unhappy ex-officials. You mean old bast@rd, you.
You hurt its feelings.

Yup, and I gave my opinion about you, JMO.

Gee, I hope that he never finds out that I'm responsible for global warming too.:D

Had a play where two players are going for an airborne ball. They both jumped in the air to get it and they hit each other, both crashing to the ground. Neither one ended up with the ball and both sides were yelling for a foul.

Coach is in my ear and I said to him, "what did the other player do that was illegal?" Coach shut up after hearing that. Not all train wrecks are fouls, but I think greater than half are.

Besides knowing my name you don't know jack about me. You don't know where I've worked or at what level.

I don't tell you what's wrong about college officials, I tell you what I PERSONALLY don't like about how we as college officials are supposed to and taught to officiate the game. I love to ref college ball but I believe in the pro mechanics. I don't hide that. People can hate on the observers. I met one of them recently and he seemed quite knowledgeable to me. I also met one of the group supervisors. Once again he seemed like an intelligent basketball referee. I do somewhat agree with Hue Hollins about getting the best of the best to be observers or group supervisors. Why don't they do it then?

Under the "more" category you can list both of which you mentioned.

As far as listening more than talking, you're right and if we met I would listen to you talk the whole time, granted I would ask some questions as well. I know if we were face to face you wouldn't attack me, you would talk to me like a human being, at least I hope you would.

Jurassic you're HS rules knowledge is uncanny. You can remember alot and I think you are a big asset to alot of the people on this forum, but we, like coaches and refs sometimes, have polar personalities and beliefs which can cause for butting heads. It doesn't help that you think I am an arrogant young kid and you are alot older than me, but if I can't have my own opinion because I am younger than how do I learn. If we can't discuss basketball plays and have an opinion, then what hopes do I have of having my own thoughts on the court and becoming a better referee?

P.S. I'm whacking the kid if the ball doesn't go in when I believe it had a chance to. I then go tell the coach that i judged that he wasn't making a legit attempt to block the ball. haha:D

I think that Scrappy is talking about where there is a train wreck in a block/charge situation. Iow, the offensive player has the ball. That is a situation where a lot of evaluators like to see a call of some kind.

Two players going after a loose ball and colliding is a whole different kinda train wreck.

It should be illegal to post incorrect information as well. Perhaps you would be better served by lurking instead of posting, unless you are willing to tell the truth about your alleged calls - the level of the game, your actual role, etc.

Please note that any personal attacks that are not related to a post are in fact deleted. However, no one should be allowed to believe that you have ever actually officiated a game other than possibly an intramural or rec league game, and no one should be permitted to follow your advice about anything, unless you post about fantasy officiating. While JR may be caustic in his criticisms, disinformation has to be pointed out immediately.

Why do you bother, anyway? Isn't life too short to pretend to be an official and post fabricated situations?

This is the one exception. Any other time where you have a big collision, we need to have a whistle.

Let me explain what I mean by that comment:

I'm at a college camp and we are in transition. I am going slot to slot opposite table and the ball is coming down the court just outside the opposite lane line from me. Well the kid gets to the hole and the defender takes a swipe at it and misses and whacks the kid right in the head. Well I wait for a whistle from lead and nothing comes. Well I blow the foul after no response from L (the ball goes in which makes it look like he doesn't get hit). I was 100% that he got hit. Well the clinician comes out and says that both the L and the T didn't see anything so why was I reaching? I was reaching cause I know with no doubt in my mind the kid got hit. I went and asked the kid just after the hoop if he got hit in the head and his exact words were, "Quite hard actually".

My point to that is the clinician was telling me to leave my partners out to dry on a play that I knew was a foul. Essentially he was telling me to let him "live or die with it" which is a philosophy I use in very rare circumstances if at all. I want to do what is right for the game, my crew, and lastly myself and in that order. I believe doing anything else or any other way is doing a disservice.

You might really be surprised as to what I know about you, Ben.

And the statement above is exactly why I can't take you seriously. Its a complete waste of time talking to you and it has been since you started posting here. You're already positive that you know everything there is to know about basketball officiating. Except for maybe some basic rules, of course.

You're just another Old School imo. Another rec league warrior who's never done a meaningful game in their life.

I have never claimed to be god's gift to officiating. Where you state I have posted bad info, I have simply posted my opinion. Maybe what I should do is put a disclaimer on all my posts. I will do that for you and this point. I will say something like info is not verified or maybe inaccurate with the actual rulebook. Would that help?

Isn't life too short to hate on people you don't know. Certainly, you got to have more going on in your life then to worry about me.

Ok, here's my clinician story from one of my very first camps.

I'm Lead. Ball swings quickly to the Center and A1 immediately drives to the basket. B1 gets a good piece of A1's arm on the shot. No whistle from the C. Clearly outside my primary, so I let it go. Here's my conversation with the observer:

Him: Whose call was that?
Me: The Center.
Him: Right. Did he have a call?
Me: No.
Him: Right. Did the kid get fouled?
Me: Yes.
Him: Right. What should you have done?
Me: Call the foul?
Him: (Patted me on the shoulder).

So it varies from clinician to clinician. Big surprise, right? :)

First of all I swore I put "haha" and a smiley face at the end of that.

And if you know so much about me please tell me what I have worked and what I worked this summer and what leagues I'm in?

So far you have got my name and that I am young. Shoot, since you are stalking me, I want you to tell me about my whole family and whether I'm Dutch, French, Native American. I think I've got alot of Native American in me personally but I don't know you tell me since you got me down pat and know everything I have been doing. Forget it. I will send you everything in a PM. haha

No, you won't, Ben. As I said, it's a waste of time...for both of us. And as I've already also said, feel free to ignore me. Us old guys don't know anything that you don't already know anyway.

You made a reference to Chuck Elias earlier in this thread. Not sure you are aware, but Chuck and JR know each other rather well. So if Chuck knows anything about you, I am sure JR would know something as well. Also if you work college like you claim, it is very easy for someone to find out something about different people in a very wide area. Living in Chicago I find it is amazing I will attend camps or other functions only to find someone knows someone that I know or knows the leagues they work.

Peace

Oooohhh...Chuck Elias...wow.

btw, when you were sitting down with him talking? He wasn't sitting.

oh yeah, and don't give him your cell phone number or he'll never leave you alone. Right Chuck?

:p

Point is why? Your opinion about me has nothing to do with the discussion.

When you hear or read someone spouting off his opinion on anything, you judge that opinion in large part on your view of that person's over all credibility; and in particular his credibility on the subject at hand.

Therefore, personal opinions about individual posters are relevant to a discussion in which those posters only contribute opinions.

Personal opinions of others are never relevent!

That's your opinion of course.

Keep that in mind every time you post. ;)

Peace

How else do you judge someone's opinion in the midst of a discussion? The only way to do so is to somehow form an opinion of them, either personally or professionally. It happens all the time in politics, sports, religion, etc. In this age of information, we have to find a way to filter the baby out of the bath water before dumping the bad water down the drain. Therefore, you form the best opinion you can manage of the people offering their opinions; and judge their opinions according to their relative worth.

No worries.... Dick Bavetta learned the same thing while in the NBA. He wasn't the first and you won't be the last.

(this may have already been discussed but this thread is 13 pages long)
what are everyone's thoughts on handling Donaghy references from coaches/players during a game? Quick & easy tech? i was working a middle school summer league last night and a coach said 'that's a shaving points call'. i bit my whistle on it but it was the first game i worked since the news broke, so i suspect its the first of a plethora of comments.

also- i dug through the casebook/rulebook on this one; happened to me at a camp & i didn't make a call; a player is laying across the midcourt line on the floor with control of the ball in his hands in the frontcourt (his feet are in the backcourt but not touching the floor). Can he pass it to a teammate who is clearly in the backcourt?

What do you mean he "said" it?

Yelled it across the court? T him immediately.

Said it so only you heard it? Tell him not to be an @sshole, no one cares enough about his games to give them an over/under. Look up the rule that says how a player gains FC status.

I've been told both things by different observers at camps; i've heard that you can make this call but the cadence of your whistle needs to allow for both the L & T to pick up the call first (i.e. it would be a delayed/late whistle on your part). I've also been told that since it is not the slot's primary and the L and/or T have clear looks, let them call/pass on it.

This is a direct comment toward your integrity as an official. Its entirely up to you how you handle it from here on out, but, my opinion is if its said loud enough that I hear it on the court hes earned a T and we are shooting 2.

he said it loud enough for me to hear it w/o rabbit ears. i would never call a coach an @sshole while working a game; that can't be defended at all.

I'm aware that the rule is you need the ball & both feet to have FC status, but in the case that he is lying on the floor, i was wondering if his torso would be considered his feet i.e. almost like a traveling call if he rolled over.

What's he gonna do? Tell everyone that he accused you of shaving points and then you called him an @sshole? :rolleyes: You need to be aware of nfhs 4-35-2

Stop this quickly with a T. This prevents it from getting out of control, and doing it early allows you to maintain your composure the rest of the game.

You need the ball and both feet to do what, exactly? All three must touch the frontcourt? In your play, the player was HOLDING the ball on the floor. You might want to look over Dan_ref's rule citation.

I'll break it down. When holding the ball, you only need to have something touching the front court and nothing touching the backcourt. If you're standing on one foot holding the ball, if that foot is in the front court, you're in the front court. You could be doing a half-a$$ hokey-pokey with the other leg shaking it over the back court line; you're still in the FC and so is the ball. Air space is irrelevant.
The only time three points come into play (both feet and the ball) is while dribbling.

Why not just judge what they are saying instead of judging the person.

Judge me for the content of my character and not the color of my skin. Martin Luther King

I will keep this sports related. If a D1 official or even an accomplished NBA official is speaking on moving up the latter, I think most people would receive them differently than someone that is a lower level HS official.

Judging someone on their character is based largely on their accomplishments. And the nature of those accomplishments also can speak to your character.

Peace

The content of your character is partly apparent when you don't tell us where you work, who you work for, what association you are in, what your reality is. When you imply that you work a higher level than you really do, your character is very clear to all of us.

We judge what you say, and not your person, and then you get all testy and chippy. You don't say things that are not meaningful or significant for most refs who work in high school ball and have to use NFHS rules. Worse, some of the things you say are confusing or misleading to these refs. THat's not judging the person, that's judging the things you say. As you request.

And how could we possibly judge by the color of your skin when you have never been seen by any of us, and WE DON"T KNOW THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN???? In other words, judging by what you say, what you say is confusing and irrelevant (note spelling).

And this...

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Goes on to say stuff about casting pearls before swine and looking out for wolves in sheep's clothing, good trees, bad trees..stuff like that. All somehow Old School related.

Except for the good trees of course.

Around here, that's how the person gets judged; based on what they're saying.
Funny thing about this board, skin color doesn't really affect how one is perceived here. It's all about what you say that determines how people view your character. Given what you've posted, I see three choices:

1. You don't really officiate and are just lying about your experience so you can feel part of the group. There may be other reasons on this one, but I find them all less charitable. Juulie tells me occasionally that I should remain charitable.

2. You really do officiate as much as you say, and with the philosophies and general rules ignorance that you display here. This says more about the state of basketball in your area than it does about you.

3. You really do officate as much as you say, but know more about the rules and hold more normal opinions on officiating philosophies than what you display here. This is the least charitable option, IMO.

No comment

This is actually the smartest post you have ever made. ;)

Peace

You forgot this......

http://feebleminds-gifs.com/donderwolk.gif
<i><b>"Don't piss me off!</b></i>--God

You do realize (I hope) that this passage in the Bible doesn't say NOT to judge . . . it says that IF you judge you will be judged by the same standard. I am willing to put my credibility up for judgement . . .