something that always bugs me

[Bart Tyson]

w_sohl, you and i might be referenceing a different play. notice i said might. I was talking about a Bang bang play under the basket. Not one where the player is just standing there and gets clocked.

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
w_sohl, you and i might be referenceing a different play. notice i said might. I was talking about a Bang bang play under the basket. Not one where the player is just standing there and gets clocked.

I wasn't refering to your post. I was just refering to the overall topic in general.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by 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.

This is not a case of common sense. Common sense when the coach strays out of his coaching box towards the endline to coach his team in violation of the rules and instead of calling a technical foul on him which is what is required by the rules you quitely remind him to step back into the coaching box as you go by him.

But when officials start using the phrase "common sense" to explain why they will not enforce a rule is because the do not know the rule or understand the rule. I do not buy the "common sense" explaination for not calling a foul in this situation.

I had two officials tell me just last week that everybody knows from "common sense" the when a player who is dribbling down the lane is fouled anytime after he stops his dribble and before he releases the ball should never be considered to be fouled in the act of shooting unless the foul occured while he was releasing the ball because coaches do not know the rule and "common sense" tells the coaches that is when the shooter is "really" in the act of shooting.

We do not apply the rules by the way non-professionals, who do not know the rules, think the rules should be applied but by the ways the rules are supposed to be applied because we are the rules professionals not the coaches.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This is not a case of common sense. Common sense when the coach strays out of his coaching box towards the endline to coach his team in violation of the rules and instead of calling a technical foul on him which is what is required by the rules you quitely remind him to step back into the coaching box as you go by him.

As I said in another post, I was told today that it's not logical to call a PC "under" the basket.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.



This is not a case of common sense. Common sense when the coach strays out of his coaching box towards the endline to coach his team in violation of the rules and instead of calling a technical foul on him which is what is required by the rules you quitely remind him to step back into the coaching box as you go by him.

But when officials start using the phrase "common sense" to explain why they will not enforce a rule is because the do not know the rule or understand the rule. I do not buy the "common sense" explaination for not calling a foul in this situation.

I had two officials tell me just last week that everybody knows from "common sense" the when a player who is dribbling down the lane is fouled anytime after he stops his dribble and before he releases the ball should never be considered to be fouled in the act of shooting unless the foul occured while he was releasing the ball because coaches do not know the rule and "common sense" tells the coaches that is when the shooter is "really" in the act of shooting.

We do not apply the rules by the way non-professionals, who do not know the rules, think the rules should be applied but by the ways the rules are supposed to be applied because we are the rules professionals not the coaches.

Mark, you have to use common sense if the rules or rule leaves it up to the official to make a decision one way or another. I can think off all kinds of calls where common sense comes into play. If it did not, then we would be calling T's for every single time a kid flops to try to draw a charge. Or we would call a T every single time a kid slaps the backboard. You have to be thinking through what happen and make a conclusion. And sometimes that conclusion takes common sense to make a decision. Especially when we witness something that was not clear. Even when officials say, "call the obvious," that statement in itself means we must use some kind of common sense. Do we call multiple fouls all the time? Is there probably once a game where we could? I know I do not call multiple fouls mainly because of all the problems it would cause. I might be right on based on what the rule is, but I would rather pick one player, and call it on them. Why go looking for crap, because the rule says call it that way and call it that way only. I sure as hell know that I have not called a T on one coach this year and have not seen a T on a coach for stepping out of his or her box and coaching their players. I know the rule wants us to give Ts the minute they step foot out of the box, but if we did that every time, there would be no coaches to coach the game. We always need to use some kind of common sense thinking.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

As I said in another post, I was told today that it's not logical to call a PC "under" the basket.

Whoever told you that it was not logical to call a player control foul "under" the basket has an extremely poor grasp of the rules.

Please reread the portion of my posting that talks about screening to make the offensive player change the type of shot he wants to take.

If a defensive player as legally acquired a position on the court under the basket, then the offensive player has to make a decision: Can he drive to the basket for a layup (high percentage shot) and still avoid making illegal contact with the defender or will he have to pull up short to shoot a lower percentage shot and thus avoid making illegal contact with the defender.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. In fact, this is a classic example why the rule is written the way it is, and why the Rules Committee (Barb Jacob's exception and do not get me started on her exception) wants it enforced. The player with the ball does not have complete immunity to go where ever he pleases. By reading the NFHS Basketball Handbook one will get a feel for why the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (now the NFHS and NCAA) wrote the rules as they are.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I know the rule wants us to give Ts the minute they step foot out of the box, but if we did that every time, there would be no coaches to coach the game.

This could be the solution to all of our problems!!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Mark, you have to use common sense if the rules or rule leaves it up to the official to make a decision one way or another. I can think off all kinds of calls where common sense comes into play. If it did not, then we would be calling T's for every single time a kid flops to try to draw a charge. Or we would call a T every single time a kid slaps the backboard. You have to be thinking through what happen and make a conclusion. And sometimes that conclusion takes common sense to make a decision. Especially when we witness something that was not clear. Even when officials say, "call the obvious," that statement in itself means we must use some kind of common sense. Do we call multiple fouls all the time? Is there probably once a game where we could? I know I do not call multiple fouls mainly because of all the problems it would cause. I might be right on based on what the rule is, but I would rather pick one player, and call it on them. Why go looking for crap, because the rule says call it that way and call it that way only. I sure as hell know that I have not called a T on one coach this year and have not seen a T on a coach for stepping out of his or her box and coaching their players. I know the rule wants us to give Ts the minute they step foot out of the box, but if we did that every time, there would be no coaches to coach the game. We always need to use some kind of common sense thinking.

Peace

I never said that we should not use common sense. Your example of the slapping the backboard is a good example as well as a casebook play telling us when not to issue the technical foul for slapping the backboard. The coach straying out of the coaching box while coaching his team is the example that I used for not issuing a technical foul (just gently remind the coach where he is and where he needs to be). The multiple foul is another good example of commong sense officiating.

But not to call a foul because the defender is doing his job (please read my posting immediately preceding this one) because common sense tells us not to is nonsense.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Whoever told you that it was not logical to call a player control foul "under" the basket has an extremely poor grasp of the rules.

Mark, I agree with you completely . I was simply pointing out some of the gripes we get for calling these things.

As to poor grasp of the rules; this was my rec ball 3-on-3 tournament yesterday. Just about every crazy topic we discuss on here came up:

PC under the backboard

"Over the back" for no/very slight contact on a rebound (My response - "That's not a rule. Show me the "over the back" rule in the rulebook and I'll pay you ten dollars.")

Player saves ball, steps out, comes back in, starts dribbling

Ball off B1, A1 goes OOB to try to recover, ball hits A1 and A1 comes to the ground (according to A, B1 "caused the ball to go OOB.)

[stripes]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[/B]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

My explanation is simple. A player under the basket or behind the backboard is not in position to play legitimate defense. Without that ability, I will not call a PC. This has not been a problem for me to explain to coaches. Consistency is not a problem here--a player in position to play defense gets the call. Those who are not in position don't. The coaches have had no problems understanding this--because the game gets called the same way at both ends. In my neck of the woods, assignors, coaches etc. have all come to know this is the way the game is called.

I understand the philosophy that you (and many others) espouse. I don't have a problem with it, but I believe the way I call the game is better for the game. You may disagree and I respect that, but we will have to agree to disagree.

[stripes]

Originally posted by crew
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.

I may be marked for death, but I will be in good company.

[crew]

Originally posted by stripes

I may be marked for death, but I will be in good company.

it seems we would be able to talk on the same level.

mark d.,
no one is trying to pry you away from your method of officiating, we are offering options to those who have difficulty deciding how to call this play. do not take my word for it, for several other highly capable refs use this same philosophy(i.e. eli roe, bbarnaky, drake m.,) these are all 3 d1 officials that agree with this method of officiating. if reffing highschool ball is your highest ambition then just ignore what we post, but if you have ambitions to ref at the college level then you may want to adopt this philosophy, though you dont have to. on this play the road splits you decide(you alone) which way to travel.

p.s. also notice how these higher level officials never accuse any ony of having a poor grasp of the rules. it is called professionalism.

[BBarnaky]

Nicely stated crew, nicely stated.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by stripes

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. [/B]

My explanation is simple. A player under the basket or behind the backboard is not in position to play legitimate defense. Without that ability, I will not call a PC. This has not been a problem for me to explain to coaches. Consistency is not a problem here--a player in position to play defense gets the call. Those who are not in position don't. The coaches have had no problems understanding this--because the game gets called the same way at both ends. In my neck of the woods, assignors, coaches etc. have all come to know this is the way the game is called.

I understand the philosophy that you (and many others) espouse. I don't have a problem with it, but I believe the way I call the game is better for the game. You may disagree and I respect that, but we will have to agree to disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]I'm still not sure that you answered my original question,Stripes.You say you wouldn't call a PC if he's under the basket,but would you now call it a block instead on a completely identical play to the one that you had already called a charge 10 feet away?That's what crew stated he would do in his original answer.If your answer is yes,you can then explain to me why you gave the PC call to an opponent of the player who is not in position in the first case,either,instead of a block.

[Bart Tyson]

I think we are beating a dead horse. certain parties on both sides are not going to change how they call this play. It obviously works in the games each of us officiate.