Different Animal, now you have an obvious violation that you no longer haveto explain. I know it sounds like we are splitting hairs, and maybe you need to learn for yourself, but trust us, hold the whistle on the first play.

Call what you really need to, and if it just one player going early and it's obvious, call it.

Tricky thing, these lane violations. My son noted a couple of years ago on a Gonzaga HS (DC) poster, there was a picture of a Gonzaga player shooting a free throw, ball clearly in flight just following release, and 6 players in lane as though it was college. I'm betting it was a no-call! (I was just impressed that he saw the same thing I did!)

The HS rule was changed from on-the-release to on-the-rim
not so long ago. Maybe 4 years? 5 years?

"Different Animal, now you have an obvious violation that you no longer haveto explain. I know it sounds like we are splitting hairs, and maybe you need to learn for yourself, but trust us, hold the whistle on the first play."

I disagree on this, Brian. The violation is clear in both situations. Granted, I have the advantage of having seen the play. Holding the toe 6 inches off the floor or having it on the floor is irrelevant. Even a 5th grader can hold his leg 1-2' into the lane. That's obvious.

At any rate, I may never see the play again--certainly not from the same kid!

Bard- this somewhat a different play but let me try to help you see where we are coming from. We are jsut here to try and help you, and let you soak in our experience.

This happened last year to me:

Player A1 throws a long bomb to sprinting player A2 trying to beat the press. Ball goes a little off and B1 who is running with, then beating A2 up the floor, get a hand on it but it goes OOB. Now, I have blown my whistle and just as I start to signal, B stops on a dime and A2 trys to stop but runs him over. Now this is a freshman game, I call a personal foul on A2. Everyone saw it, no one said a word.

Now what is wrong with this picture? I should have called a T, because it technically was a dead ball period. I figure myself and my partner are the only two in the gym who know the rule, so why make life hard on ourselves by calling the T.

After the game a gentleman who is an "evaluator" for a local league, there to watch his grandson play, comes down from the bleachers and tears me a new one about ignoring rules. Now, he was right by the book, but I still think common sense wise I made the best decision. I am not one to tell someone to disregard a rule, but you need to make the call that is best for the situation. If I had called the T I would have had to explain it to a coach who still would think I am wrong, and had to deal with him the rest of the game. Eventhough the book says it was a T, I don't think it would not have been the best call. If this was Varsity would I have called it different, maybe. But, did that kid really need to be sanctioned with a technical foul on a bang-bang play because he couldn't stop as fast as the other kid?? No.

PS - Turns out there were three people in the gym who knew the right call...

Brian, I'd tend to let your kind of play go. Ball is dead, so the contact can't have an effect on the play. I'd hesitate to call this intentional (or flagrant) and give the T, because the kid wasn't accelerating.

What is wrong with this picture is that you didn't tell us if you felt the contact was intentional or flagrant. If not, you don't have a technical but a no-call.

I agree with your call in that situation, Brian, unless you have a "no call" on the foul. I'm not disputing the need for common sense. I don't, however, see a difference between the foot that's over the line touching the floor or just being held there waiting for the ball to hit the rim. Crossing the plane is crossing the plane. The kid might as well learn that in the 6th grade than look like an awkward flamingo once he's in high school. (Did I mention his foot was well across the line????)

I think part of why I am enjoying officiating is the intricacies of the rules and the challenge of applying them to real situations on the spur-of-the-moment. It makes doing the games interesting and these discussions the next day informative and useful.

I agree with Mark...if the foul occured during a dead ball and it wasn't intentional or flagrant, by rule we are to ignore the contact.

Dan

The kid got leveled (it was a lot of lb's on an awkward teenager rumbling up the floor). Did I think it was intentional or flagrant, no. Did I have to call a foul, I think yes, it would fall under the obvious catagory. Maybe you had to see it, I can't ever recall a similar play. My partner agreed with me after the game, a foul had to be called, it just didn't require a sledghammer.

[Edited by Brian Watson on Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:19 PM]

I think I understand now. Well before the shooter released the ball, the player put his foot forward to "block out" the opposing player. Is that right? IF so, I agree, it's a violation.

OTOH, if the foot was in the air after the ball was released and a fraction of a second before the ball hit the rim, well, let's just say that you have better eyes than I. ;)

BRIAN
 

Looks like a proper decision on this play. Some officials seem to struggle with the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". As Bard mentioned, "...officiating is the intricacies of the rules and the challenge of applying them to real situations on the spur-of-the-moment." Part of that challenge is knowing how they fit into the game.

My interpretation of this scenario is a no call. The ball going out of bounds causes it to become dead. The contact after the whistle should be ignored unless it is flagrant or intentional. It doesn't sound like either to me. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

I still disagree with the call. If you didn't think it was intentional or flagrant then by rule it is not a foul. Just because there is contact and just because it is obvious in your opinion does not make it a foul.

Here's a similar play that happened to me a few weeks back. A1 is driving to the basket. On his way to the hoop he carries the ball. I immediately blow the whistle for the violation. A1's momentum carries him into B1. They both fall to the ground in a heap. Both coaches are up and yelling by this time. A's coach wants a block call on B1. B's coach wants a PC call on A1. I come up with the carry violation and we go the other way. Here I am with nobody in the stands agreeing with me. Was there obvious contact? yes. Was any of it flagrant or intentional? No. I'm not going to make up something to please some coach or some evaluator in the stands. I also believe a call like this is supported by both the letter and the spirit of the rules.