Stick 'em or not?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

If A players are within earshot, in a quieter voice, "I don't want to have to call a T this late in a close game."

Silly me. I always thought that unsportsmanlike technicals were determined by the action of the player, not other factors. Please cite the rule number that states whether or not you call an unsportsmanlike technical is dependent on the score and/or the time left in a game. Thanks.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree, the great thing about our profession is when some of us start making rules up, there's generally someone to hold us accountable.

Old School?

[Texas Aggie]

shouts "You can't start counting until we pick up the ball, what's your problem"?

I (loudly) state, "my problem is that's not true. The count starts when its at your disposal. Know the rule before complaining next time."

I had a jr. high kid last year in football keep yelling "the ground can't cause a fumble" on a ruled fumble. I don't recall whether he was still on the field for his team's (now defensive) huddle, or was walking off, but I loudly told him (and the coach) that the ground has nothing to do with it. If he isn't ruled down, he CAN fumble. Didn't hear a word from either one of them.

[The Canuck]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Silly me. I always thought that unsportsmanlike technicals were determined by the action of the player, not other factors. Please cite the rule number that states whether or not you call an unsportsmanlike technical is dependent on the score and/or the time left in a game. Thanks.

Nothing silly about it Mark, you're absolutely right. But this is language players understand. Nobody wants a technical to decide the game. If it has to, it has to, but if it can be prevented in any way, it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

10.3.20. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play. This shall also apply to bench personnel.

To me, actively refusing to put the ball in play by ignoring it is "preventing the ball from being promptly made live" AND "preventing continuous play".

Before you howl at that interpretation, sleep soundly knowing I never have to enforce this set of rules again. The bad thing about our profession is how eager we are to show each other up.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

10.3.20. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play. This shall also apply to bench personnel.

To me, actively refusing to put the ball in play by ignoring it is "preventing the ball from being promptly made live" AND "preventing continuous play".

In the op, it was stated that the ball was at the disposal of team A, which means it was already live. (6-2-b)

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

Nothing silly about it Mark, you're absolutely right. But this is language players understand. Nobody wants a technical to decide the game. If it has to, it has to, but if it can be prevented in any way, it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

In this case, the T can be prevented by you enforcing the rules as written. This is not a delay of game, nor is it a T. It's simply a 5-count, as described in the rule book.

Originally Posted by The Canuck

10.3.20. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play. This shall also apply to bench personnel.

To me, actively refusing to put the ball in play by ignoring it is "preventing the ball from being promptly made live" AND "preventing continuous play". Before you howl at that interpretation, sleep soundly knowing I never have to enforce this set of rules again.

After a made basket, the ball is live when it's available to the players on the team that didn't just shoot. So the ball was live, and no one was preventing it from become live. It's not a matter of "your interpretation", it's a matter of knowing the rules and applying them appropriately.

Originally Posted by The Canuck

The bad thing about our profession is how eager we are to show each other up.

No one is anxious to show anyone up here. we're just anxious that all refs are applying the rules in a consistent manner, consistent with each other and consistent with the way they're written. That's the best way to ensure that all games and all teams get a "fair game".

** HHmmmm does this reply sound similar to some replies I've made toa certain someone else a time or two? to replies others have made to a certain someone else? HHmmm...

[SMEngmann]

Well I would be remiss to say that this wouldn't be an issue if all rule sets used common sense and stopped the clock on a made basket under a minute at the end of the game. A glaring problem in the rules that needs to be fixed IMO.

In this situation, we basically need to bite the bullet here, I don't see how anyone could justify calling a technical in this situation. Under the rules, sure, but if you T here you will bring the house down on your head and you will give your supervisor a major headache. I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to defend a T over that statement at that point in the game. I would even say that calling a T here is overly officious.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

Under the rules, sure,...

Which sitch are you discussing? The OP? Which part of the OP? There are places there where a T has been contemplated, but it wouldn't be legit under the rules. And places where a T was given very appropriately. You need to be more specific.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

In this situation, we basically need to bite the bullet here, I don't see how anyone could justify calling a technical in this situation. Under the rules, sure, but if you T here you will bring the house down on your head and you will give your supervisor a major headache. I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to defend a T over that statement at that point in the game. I would even say that calling a T here is overly officious.

1) If you're worried about bringing the house down on your head when you make ANY call at ANY time, then you're in the wrong avocation. Officiating isn't for you.

2) I disagree completely with your "supervisor" remark too. From personal experience I'd have to say imo that the truth is the polar opposite of your statement. Supervisors want officials that will take care of bidness if they have to, not people that make up excuses to avoid making the tough call. People like that give supervisors headaches, and supervisors will get rid of those headaches.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Which sitch are you discussing? The OP? Which part of the OP? There are places there where a T has been contemplated, but it wouldn't be legit under the rules. And places where a T was given very appropriately. You need to be more specific.

It has to be the OP. He referred to the player making a statement.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

this wouldn't be an issue if all rule sets used common sense and stopped the clock on a made basket under a minute at the end of the game. A glaring problem in the rules that needs to be fixed IMO.

What makes stopping the clock after a basket "common sense"? And if we don't do it for the entire game, what makes it common sense to do it only in the last minute? And only the last minute of the game? You're telling us that common sense dictates that we change one rule only for the last minute of the game?

Common sense to me is that you use the same rules for the whole game.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What makes stopping the clock after a basket "common sense"? And if we don't do it for the entire game, what makes it common sense to do it only in the last minute? And only the last minute of the game? You're telling us that common sense dictates that we change one rule only for the last minute of the game?

Common sense to me is that you use the same rules for the whole game.

Why?

There are already examples of rules changing depending on where you are in the game (before/during/after).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Why?

There are already examples of rules changing depending on where you are in the game (before/during/after).

Point taken. I overstated my position. I was really just asking what makes it "common sense" to change this particular rule. It makes just as much sense to me (in the case of this rule) to keep it consistent with the rest of the game and let the clock run after a made basket.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I was really just asking what makes it "common sense" to change this particular rule. It makes just as much sense to me (in the case of this rule) to keep it consistent with the rest of the game and let the clock run after a made basket.

Whatinthehell do you volleyball refs know about basketball anyway? That's where the old folks who can't run any more go to die.

Btw, fwiw I agree with you. I never could figure out the reasoning behind stopping the clock after a made basket in the last minute and not in the rest of the game......especially when you also have rules in place to take care of someone trying to delay the game anyway. Of course, you also do have to have officials with the nads to enforce those existing rules without worrying about the wrath of the crowd.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Whatinthehell do you volleyball refs know about basketball anyway?

A lot more than I know about volleyball!