something that always bugs me

[stripes]

crew,

I've got to give it you. You continue your crusade on officiating with all of these guys even though they will never see eye to eye with you. Lots of guy's would have given up by now. Just to save themselves the grief.

The philsophy you give is (widely) accepted at the NCAA mens level, but is looked down upon by most NF officials because it is indefensible "by the book." What many NF officials have never accepted is that the rule book is a guide for how the game should be called. It is open to interpretation and the rules can apply differently on different parts of the court.

This is not a popular opinion (especially in this forum), but it is one that officials may need to subscribe to if they desire to move up in the men's game.

Flame away.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by stripes
crew,

I've got to give it you. You continue your crusade on officiating with all of these guys even though they will never see eye to eye with you. Lots of guy's would have given up by now. Just to save themselves the grief.

The philsophy you give is (widely) accepted at the NCAA mens level, but is looked down upon by most NF officials because it is indefensible "by the book." What many NF officials have never accepted is that the rule book is a guide for how the game should be called. It is open to interpretation and the rules can apply differently on different parts of the court.

This is not a popular opinion (especially in this forum), but it is one that officials may need to subscribe to if they desire to move up in the men's game.

Flame away.

OK,Stripes,just give me a simple explanation on how a play that is called a charge in one case could become a block if you move it 10 feet?Also,let me know how you explain to a coach that he got a different call at his end because his player didn't stand in the right spot,even though everything else was the same?I'm not asking from a philosophical standpoint.I'm asking from a consistency standpoint.Please note that there is no flaming involved.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Dan_Rer, thank you for the complement.

But as to Crew's ascertion that he would not call a foul even though a foul has been committed, I have to jump into the fray that has been meandering through any thread about the application of NFHS R4-S27 and NCAA R4-S37 (incidental contact).

This type of foul has to be called. Athletism is not an excuse for a player to play out of control.

[Bart Tyson]

OK my turn. As the play is described, I have to say it is a PC foul. As to the question, how can a play be called different depending where they are on the court? If it is a close play i.e. bang bang play. if the def. is under the basket, i may error on the side of a block. Same play out at the top of key may be a charge. But i have to see the play i don't have a hard and fast rule on how i will make this call. the closest i come to on close PC foul is if the def. took it in the chest.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
OK my turn. As the play is described, I have to say it is a PC foul. As to the question, how can a play be called different depending where they are on the court? If it is a close play i.e. bang bang play. if the def. is under the basket, i may error on the side of a block. Same play out at the top of key may be a charge. But i have to see the play i don't have a hard and fast rule on how i will make this call. the closest i come to on close PC foul is if the def. took it in the chest.

How can you error on the side of a block. A1 has a legal position on the court. B1 charges into him. Charging foul on B1, it cannot be anything but a foul on B1. Anytime A1 secures a legal position on the court before B1 (in control of the ball) becomes an airborne player, and B1 makes contact with A1, A1 cannot ever be called for a foul. (Notice how I followed J. Dallas Shirley's advice to never say never and never say always). The requirement for contact with the front of the defender's torso is for a player who is guarding a player. But in the posted play A1 is a screener.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

How can you error on the side of a block. A1 has a legal position on the court. B1 charges into him. Charging foul on B1, it cannot be anything but a foul on B1. Anytime A1 secures a legal position on the court before B1 (in control of the ball) becomes an airborne player, and B1 makes contact with A1, A1 cannot ever be called for a foul. (Notice how I followed J. Dallas Shirley's advice to never say never and never say always). The requirement for contact with the front of the defender's torso is for a player who is guarding a player. But in the posted play A1 is a screener.

In my haste to get this posted I forgot one important element of screening. A defensive player can set screens and must follow the time and distance requiments for setting a screen. This is the only time that the time and distance requiements are required be the defense against a player in control of the ball. And in most cases, the screen by a defender meets the time and distance requirements of screening.

[crew]

Originally posted by stripes
crew,

I've got to give it you. You continue your crusade on officiating with all of these guys even though they will never see eye to eye with you. Lots of guy's would have given up by now. Just to save themselves the grief.

The philsophy you give is (widely) accepted at the NCAA mens level, but is looked down upon by most NF officials because it is indefensible "by the book." What many NF officials have never accepted is that the rule book is a guide for how the game should be called. It is open to interpretation and the rules can apply differently on different parts of the court.

This is not a popular opinion (especially in this forum), but it is one that officials may need to subscribe to if they desire to move up in the men's game.

Flame away.

stripes,
thanks for the support. but i fear you have chosen the mark of death by following me into the lions den. as has been stated in previous post that higher level officials use this philosophy. i am not try to scorn anyone for not using this philosophy, or demand that it must be used by anyone. i am just trying to give my opinion on the play as i would call it.

[BBarnaky]

Crew,
Thanks for your continued posts and not giving up on this forum. I learn from you and your thoughts all the time. I also echo Stripes comments that one must subscribe to these philosphies if they are to move up in the NCAA men's level, as I believe I have had at least a small amount of success at the NCAA men's level.
Your thoughts and ideas are well appreciated. I understand your not trying to lure anybody over to the Darkside from the NFHS people. Continue to use the force my young Skywalker!!!

[rainmaker]

Folks --

Rain here, checking into the crew vs everyone else fray. The reason crew can get away with his NBA block/charge calls in HS games, is because his assignor for HS games lets him. Most of us have assignors who prefer to follow the Fed rules more exactly, but apparently in crew's vicinity, this isn't the decision. So he isn't going to change his mind.

As others keep saying, "When in Rome..." Most of you mean, "When in Fed, follow Fed rules." But crew is apparently working in Sparta, which is under Roman rule, but has a rebellious sub-consul who allows Spartan interpretations even though the "law" is Roman. So that's just the way it goes.

My only request is that crew would ALWAYS include, in his posts about block/charge, that most Fed interpreters aren't going to agree with him. This is a simple courtesy to less experienced officials who haven't yet seen through the whole variety of rule systems.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Folks --

Rain here, checking into the crew vs everyone else fray. The reason crew can get away with his NBA block/charge calls in HS games, is because his assignor for HS games lets him. Most of us have assignors who prefer to follow the Fed rules more exactly, but apparently in crew's vicinity, this isn't the decision. So he isn't going to change his mind.

As others keep saying, "When in Rome..." Most of you mean, "When in Fed, follow Fed rules." But crew is apparently working in Sparta, which is under Roman rule, but has a rebellious sub-consul who allows Spartan interpretations even though the "law" is Roman. So that's just the way it goes.

My only request is that crew would ALWAYS include, in his posts about block/charge, that most Fed interpreters aren't going to agree with him. This is a simple courtesy to less experienced officials who haven't yet seen through the whole variety of rule systems.

Very well put. There are lots of "new guys" who come here
that will now be calling blocks in 8th grade games on this
play, and will happily tell the coach it's a block because
the defender was too close to the basket. The NF has been
tireless in their efforts to get consistency on this play:
it's a charge. There are also college assignors that will
tell you this is a charge or its nothing. When in Rome do as the Romans do, exactly, unless you're in Sparta and your boss is a Roman!

(BTW Rain, I still need to make a trip to the post office,
sorry for the delay but it's on it's way!)

[Bart Tyson]

Mark, the more PC fouls you call under the basket encourages less def. movement, more players trying the draw PC foul and makes for an ugly game. I am not saying not call a PC on a nobrainer. However, if its close i perfer the block. The block does discourage standing under the basket.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Mark, the more PC fouls you call under the basket encourages less def. movement, more players trying the draw PC foul and makes for an ugly game. I am not saying not call a PC on a nobrainer. However, if its close i perfer the block. The block does discourage standing under the basket.

A player control foul is a no brainer. The defender can stand any play he darn well pleases. If A1 has control of the ball and: (a) B1 obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA Men's; do not get me started on Barb Jacob's NBA/WNBA's nonsense for the women) a legal guarding a position before A1 became an airborne player, then it is A1's responsibility to go airborne in a manner that will allow him to return to the floor without making illegal contact with B1; or (b) B1 secured a position on the court in accordance to the rules regarding time and distance for setting a screen against a moving player before A1 became an airborne player, then it is A1's responsibility to go airborne in a manner that will allow him to return to the floor without making illegal contact with B1.

B1 cannot be guilty of a blocking foul in either (a) or (b). It does not matter where on the court B1 is standing; he has fulfilled all of the requirments that the rules require of him and it is WRONG to charge him with a blocking foul instead of charging A1 charging foul, just because of B1's position on the court.

The reason that more players trying to draws charging fouls make for an ugly game is utter nonsense. And incorrectly calling a blocking foul on B1 instead of correctly calling a charging foul on A1 because you do not want defensive player from standing under the basket, is unethical. When B1 sets a screen in a position on the court that requires A1 to pull up and shoot a lower percentage jump shot instead of leaping forward, without impunity, to shoot a higher percentage layup is smart defense.

The real problem in the game now is that too many blocks are being called when the correct call is charging. Player control fouls do not make for an ugly game, allowing offensive players charge into defensive players who have legal position on the court without impunity is what makes for an ugly game.

[Mark Dexter]

B1 is set up under the basket, A1 comes in and plows into B1. Double whistle - partner and I have PC.

Team A goes nuts!

How can that be a charge? (I respond it's not the NBA rule, it's the HS/NCAA rule.)

But it's not logical to call the charge there! (I just look blankly at this one.)

You can't have a charge under the basket! That's why the line is there at the [school's gym]! (No, there's not!)

It took all of my composure not to laugh at these people.

[Bart Tyson]

I guess you and i will have to agree to disagree. I'm not just a rule book official. I will also use common sense. My opinion from my experience is different from yours when it comes to ugly games concerning block/charge under the basket. I would bet anything i could watch any official in any game and find many things that were not officiated strickly by the book.

[w_sohl]

The key is "SPIRIT OF THE RULE", although if that had happened in my game it definatly would have been a charge. The best case scenario would be a no-call, but I don't see how you could ever call a blocking foul on that play in high school if the player is just standng there. If the light is green and the car infront of you isn't going anywhere are you going to push them out into the intersection to get them to move? I think that you would still be guilty once the cops got there wether the light was green or red.