Stick 'em or not?
 

I'm the lead with under 20 seconds remaining in a win or go home ballgame, Team B scores to cut Team A's lead to 1.
Team A doesn't attempt to pick up the ball (at their dispossal) for a throw-in (clock is still running). I thought that I was being very generous in giving a verbal "one" to make Team A aware that I'm indeed counting & not having the stalling tactics.
A1 requests & is granted a time out (4.5 on my count). Instead of being thankful for the verbal "one" count, A1 (on his way to the bench) turns around and shouts "You can't start counting until we pick up the ball, what's your problem"?

Now, I've trained myself to have selective hearing & have learned to ignore stupid comments. But wait a minute... is this guy really yelling at ME for helping him twice (could've easily counted silently & visually also could've ignored the time-out & went with 5 seconds).

I know if I stick him, Team B could make up to 6 points & Team A loses the ballgame on a stupid technical foul.




Besides NOT giving the verbal "one" count, what would you all have done?

This is what you get for being nice. At least, that's what some folks will tell you. You just administer the game as you normally do, and don't go out of your way to be "nice". You can't. And, yes, I'd stick him -- for being a complete idiot. If they lose because of the T, the coach better be yelling at him, not you!!

Stick him.

If all he said was the first part - let it go, but the "what's your problem" part is a T in my book.

BTW - my book contains words of only one letter - "T". :rolleyes:

Giving him a T, while a natural emotional response, would not be the best thing to do here in this situation. Yes, he was being a smart a$$. Yes, he should be thankful for your "help". Yes, he deserves a smack across the face. But, no profanity and a short comment that may have only been heard by you OR at least looks very minor on film, does not warrant a T.

You did a good thing by verbally starting your count to give him fair warning. IMHO your penalty/punishment should have been NOT granting the T.O. and awarding the ball to Team B. A turnover means that Team B still has to inbound, shoot, and score. Whacking the kid w/ a T is the "double whammy" - Team B shoots FT's to tie/go ahead AND gives Team B possession of the ball.

Save yourself the game changing problem...either don't grant the T.O.....or....grant the T.O. and get over your ego problem and pass on the T.

I'm sure 95% of others in here will say: "whack 'em".....

Appreciate the touchback all, and yes ma'am I'm done with being "nice". It truly doesn't pay!!

So, yep I stuck him & Team B hit the FTs for the T, up by 1 then got fouled immediately near the division line & made 2 more to win the game by 3 before Team A could get the desperation shot attempt off.

After the game nincompoop ran up and asked me if the team that I wanted to win had won?
I told him YES they sure did now go home :)

Of course the assignor (who received an email the next morning) told him that if I really wanted the other team to win... "why would he had given you a verbal "one" count when a visual is all that is required"?

It's good that the assignor has your back. But who was the assignor talking to the player? That's NOT good. He should ONLY talk to coaches.

I would not have whacked him for the comment. Now, if he is the player that returns for the throw-in and nobody is within ear shot I may say "I cut you some slack you twice...the audible "one" and not sticking you with a tech for the comment as you walked to the bench. You won't be that lucky again."

But, what if the player turns around and shouts his comments while walking to the bench?

Not sure if you read my OP correctly, but A1 turns around & shouts everyone heard it & looked directly at me like "oooooohhhhhh he told you".
I don't know about you but NOBODY shouts at me on my wood.

I can't understand how you think the verbal was a good thing?? I'll never ever do that again... what if the other team knew the rules & said I was cheating by giving the verbal???

Who said they were kids?

And why not grant a TO when my arm didn't click on 5?

Ego? You lost me, but thanks for chiming in.

No coaches, summer league for "college players/grads"

This probably falls under "showing up the ref". I definitely would not T just for what was said. HTBT for the shouting, but in that case, the T is understandable.

Why didn't you say so? Whack 'im and walk away laughing. :D

I think this is a good T at any level, simply for the "what's your problem" line at the end. If he leaves that off, he's probably going to get a pass, and maybe even a bried explanation. But once he "calls me out," you can bet I'm going to whack him.

Are you serious? You're going to <b>deliberately</b> ignore a rule just to get back at a player? Un-freaking-believable. That concept is right out of the Old School book of rec league officiating.

We're officials. We don't play games with the rules to make a point. Calling a "T" on this play is a judgment call. Calling a violation that <b>ISN'T</b> a violation just to get back at a player is never the way to go. That's just wrong. No wonder our damn integrity gets questioned if some officials are out there pulling this kinda crap.

Terrible, terrible advice imo. I'm sure that 95% of the experienced officials on this forum will agree with me too.

Whack him. I don't do verbal counts on this, regardless. I might make my visual count a little exaggerated, but it's not going to be audible.

The T becomes easy and simple when he adds "what's your problem." I would have answered him differently after the game, though. That comment might lead to other problems if your assigner isn't so understanding. Then again, it's wreck league; thus making the T easier and the comment more acceptable. :) Well done.

Oh, and yes, I agree with JR that jeffpea's advice is, well, not optimal.

I agree on all points. Only thing I'd really stay away from would have been the post game reply to the player - best not to give them anything at all to work with, just walk away.

If there were any games left for this team, I'd have T'd him up again and ejected him. If he wants to be a moron, let him pay the price and sit out a game or two.

Yeah - but how do you really feel? :rolleyes:

It was the second part of the comment that would have drawn the T from me. Especially since he turned and yelled at me and everyone heard it.

:D

It was kind of weird advice anyway. The player didn't say anything until <b>after</b> the timeout request was granted. How could you possibly go back at that time and call a retroactive 5-second violation instead? Now, if the player said it <b>during</b> the count, it might be different. But not different enough to justify making up your own rules.

Imo you just follow the rules that you have. You have a legitimate and legal TO request. There's no reason not to grant it. After that, any response to the player yakking is predicated by the tolerance level of the official. You can ignore it, warn the player or call the "T"-- your choice. If you want to penalize the player, fine, then go ahead and do so. Do it correctly by the rules though. There's no need to play games.

JMHO....

A1 shouted this at you? As in a whole bunch of others heard it too? Whack! Easy call.

I have no problem with "ONE....". The only other thing you can do is say, "I'm still counting..." but only after you start to count.

The first line in your quote above is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say "get over your ego".....Those who have big ego's always seem to "bring a gun to a knife fight" - iow, they tend to pass out a tech. whenever their ego is challenged.

Sometimes you've got to take your medicine as a result of the situation that you've helped to create.

I agree with that, but this situation was not created by the official. The official correctly started a count and correctly granted a time-out request before the violation. In this case, if some know-it-all player wants to hand out some medicine (loudly and in front of the whole crowd), he probably should have it shoved back down his own throat.

So, you'd allow the player to yell at you AND ignore a legal TO reqest? If that had happened I'm sure there would have been even more people yelling at you. If you wouldn't have whacked the kid for this - what would it take to deserve a T? You cannot let your knowledge of game situation control what you should and should not call. You have to take care of business. You can't let this outburst slide by.

That's exactly the point that I was trying to make, Jeff. I don't have a problem with your personal opinion as to what the <b>reaction</b> should be to a player yapping. I certainly don't agree with you but everybody does have different tolerance levels. However, if you start making phantom violation/foul calls, etc. as an alternative to reacting according to the options laid out in the rules, then you're <b>creating</b> you own mess. You deserve everything that you subsequently get because <b>you</b> caused the problems.

This is a summer league, so he's definitely getting whacked!!

Regular season / playoff game I might use discretion because the reality is that the focus of the end of the game is now going to be on us. It would definitely be addressed one way or another though.

If they're ignoring the ball after a made basket, TWEET with a delay of game warning. "I've got a delay of game warning against Team A. Let's keep it moving boys, next time will be a T." 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."

Now we've stopped the game and will resume where we left off... a throw-in for team A behind the end line, administered by the officials, and therefore, with a count. Seems to me that's a preventative way of dealing with it, and personally I try to be preventative.

You shout at a ref, you get stuck. Doesn't matter who was right or wrong or what the ref did to trigger it. The great thing about our profession is that we have a whistle, and as such, even if we're wrong, we're right.

1) Can you cite a rule, NFHS or NCAA, that will allow you to do that?

2) If they're ignoring the ball after a made basket, the current rules already authorize you to start a count. Iow, the rules that we already have direct us on how to handle the situation.

It's always a good idea to just follow the rules as written without making up new ones.

Of course, if you answered using FIBA rules, please ignore the above. You should always specify which ruleset that you're using to answer. We usually assume that FED or NCAA rules are being used.

Can you tell me how this is preventative? You're preventing, what, a 5 second violation? With a delay of game warning that isn't in the rule book? Good grief, there's no need to make stuff up here.
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.

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.

Old School? :p

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

1) If you're worried about bringing the house down on your head when you make <b>ANY</b> call at <b>ANY</b> 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 <B>give</B> supervisors headaches, and supervisors <b>will</b> get rid of those headaches.

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

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).

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.

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.:)

A lot more than I know about volleyball!

Perhaps it's... wait for it, my favourite word... preventative. If it doesn't stop in the last minute, we'll have players crossing the end line grabbing their opponents to foul to try to stop the clock. That'll lead to more problems.

On the other hand, it could just be an attempt to make the game more exciting for fanboys.

HUH??? It DOESN'T stop in the last minute! And I haven't seen anyone cross the end line to grab the opponent!! Never in 8 years. So if it doesn't happen, it can't lead to more problems.

And how does it make it more exciting for fanboys to stop the clock after a made basket?

And if they do that, it's an <b>intentional</b> personal foul, which is 2 free throws <b>and</b> the ball. Iow, we already have a rule in place that is....wait for it.....<b>preventative</b>.

I hate to get in the middle of a good exchange of sarcasm, but if you call the intentional foul (which you would do after the defender reaches through the endline and grabs the inbounder), how is that preventative? :confused: You've assessed a penalty for the action, but you haven't prevented the action, have you?

The point, I take it, is that the existence of the penalty is in itself a deterrent to the penalized act and is thus "preventative."

You're right, though, that calling a foul does not prevent that instance of the foul.

It's a good thing we have a rule against traveling, then, to prevent that from happening!

No, but if the defensive team has any brains at all, calling it has <b>prevented</b> them from pulling that sh!t again.

Freaking volleyball officials.....:rolleyes:

OK, you tell me, Scappy......whatinthehell <b>is</b> preventive officiating then? Does it even exist if somebody has the option of ignoring an official's attempt at preventive officiating? According to your logic, preventive officiating can't exist.

JR, are you saying officiating isn't about being "preventative?"

Sorry, I'm off playing Air Force for a week, so my brain is a little slow today.

Nope, Skippy is. Ask him.

Preventive officiating is when you prevent a player from breaking the rules.

"Clear the lane!"
"Hands off!"
"Straight up, guys!"

There are penalties that you can enforce, if a player handchecks or dislodges a player in the low post or stays in the lane for 3 seconds. But with 2 or 3 words, the player doesn't actually commit the infraction. That's preventive. You've actually prevented the infraction. Hence the name "preventive officiating". See the connection now? :)

But your argument makes no sense. You cannot truly prevent a player from committing any infraction. How is telling someone "Hands off!" preventing the player from doing anything? If he continues to displace the opposing player, you haven't prevented anything, have you?

You can only try to help prevent players from committing infractions - you cannot prevent them from doing anything. Otherwise there would be no infractions. Your argument holds no water - it's no different than saying the penalty is preventative. You're essentially agreeing with JR here.

Sigh.....

And if they don't (1)clear the lane,(2)keep their hands off, or (3) don't go straight up, then howinthehell can you call it preventive officiating? You haven't prevented <b>anything</b>. All you're doing is telling a player <b>not</b> to break a specific rule.

Which was exactly my point......

The rule on intentional fouls for a defender going OOB and fouling an opponent on a throw-in is </b>preventive</b>! It was put into the book to stop defenders from pulling that nonsense. Aamof, you can also say that <b>every</b> rule in the book is preventive in nature. Whether it actually prevents what it was intended to prevent is irrelevant.

And further.... if stopping the clock in the last minute is supposedly "preventive", then what is preventing a defender from <b>STILL</b> going OOB and fouling the thrower, even though the clock is stopped?

Geeze, poor scimpy's getting an old fashioned beat down here.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart.../ksmn1635l.jpg

He'd be better off sticking to volleyball.

So what would you like to call it? "Trying to helping preventing officiating"? Jeez.

If my voice makes a light bulb go on over a kid's head, that's preventive. If my voice doesn't help and the kid commits the infraction, then it's not preventive and I have to go to the penalty.

The penalty is NEVER preventive, because it's applied AFTER the infraction. If you PREVENT the infraction, you don't need the penalty.

Writing a speeding ticket is not preventive law enforcement. A state trooper driving in the middle lane at 65 mph is preventive law enforcement. Just by being there, s/he is preventing most people from speeding.

This is simply wrong. I can't even argue about it anymore. It's so obviously wrong. :(

This is so ridiculous, you should've put "A wise man once said" in front of it.

1) Does that mean that none of the penalties in the book are preventive in nature? Coulda fooled me. I thought that they were <b>all</b> instituted to <b>try</b> to prevent a specific act.

2) And if you don't prevent the infraction, how can it be "preventive"?

Are you really saying that, in the play being discussed, instituting an expanded penalty to a normal live ball foul by adding an <b>EXTRA</b> penalty(second shot maybe + possession) for fouling a thrower OOB isn't preventive in nature?

Say what?

Name me one rule...any rule....in the current FED or NCAA rule book that <b>wasn't</b> put in place to prevent players, coaches, bench personnel, etc. from performing the applicable act associated with that rule. The rules say "don't do that, and if you do, you'll be penalized".

Now you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you possibly say with any certainty that knowing the penalty for an act doesn't prevent a kid from performing an illegal act? You're saying that it's not possible that a kid can stop from doing something illegal because he knows he might get penalized for it? How is that not preventative?

You are being silly.

This is a simple "type/token" confusion.

(1) Penalties are in the rule book to prevent certain types of act.

(2) Imposing a penalty for a foul or violation obviously cannot prevent the token (or instance) that one whistled.

The truth of (2) does not undercut the truth of (1).

The idea of such preventive officiating as "get out of the middle!" depends on the idea in (1).

That's what it means. Penalties are applied AFTER the infraction has occurred. If it comes AFTER, then by definition, it didn't PREVENT it. Is this really that complicated? :confused:

Uh, yeah. I noticed.

No. That's where you're exactly wrong. They were instituted to tell you what to do when somebody actually DOES something wrong; not to PREVENT the wrong action. The penalty in itself ASSUMES that the wrong action has been committed.

Good grief. Those of you who are fighting this are simply being difficult. I'm done with this thread.

Wellll....neither writing the speeding ticket nor the trooper being in sight is preventative. What is preventative is the threat of the penalty (a $$$ fine and points and increased insurance rates) that comes after the trooper writes the ticket. The penalty is what makes real the preventative threat.

THAT's what is preventative. If it wasn't for the threat of a penalty I would roll down my window and throw my beer can at the trooper as I sped by him.

As for the little bulb you turn on for the player...there's another word for that: coaching.

The penalties in force are what we like to call "deterrents." Deterrents are, by nature, preventative. The intentional foul is a deterrent. The penalties are increased from standard personal fouls because the rules committee wants to deter players from doing things like reaching across the OOB line and fouling the thrower.

I can see how maybe the penalties for traveling, personal fouls, and backcourt violations might not be considered preventative deterrents. TFs and IFs, however, must be considered preventative deterrents.

Geeze, now you're being difficult too. Tsk, tsk.

The bright side is that it looks like we've chased Skippy back to the Volleyball forum where he belongs.:D

Geeze, think I'll get kicked out of the clique?

http://eieiofootball.com/uploaded_im...dog-790261.gif

please please please please

What are you guys, a couple of philosophy professors? You're making it way too complicated. If you yell at the players, they either don't do the dirty, or they do. If they do, you penalize; if they don't, you let them play on. Who cares what the durn words are?

Well, duh, of course not. You've got yourself a lifetime membership just by being so difficult all the time.