This is not something that I've seen happen but what if: A1 is a really lethargic kid who on defense is just standing like a statue in the paint. He is not moving so much as an eyelash and has been there in that position since B1 crossed the division line into frontcourt. Remember, this is hypothetical. After a few passes, B1 drives into the paint with the ball and crashes into the side of A1. A1 never obtained nor maintained legal guarding position but he did have his spot on the floor that he was entitled to by rule long before B1 came in and knocked him out of it. What would you have, no call, block, or charge?

Not very clear to me Ralph.
 

A1 I assume in this play is the defense? Usually A1 is the offense or the team with the ball at the start of these kind of plays. So that is my first confusion. Then you are saying that B1(offense in this play) comes in an knocks over A1(defense in this play).

If that is the case, you have a foul if B1 just knocked A1 over. And it really does not matter who is on offense or defense this should be a foul and a rather easy one to call. And since you said the B1 has the ball, it is a PC foul. Especially because A1 was just standing there and got knocked over by B1 that had the ball.

My question to you is, why would A1 in this play not have established Legal Guarding Position?

Peace

A1 has not obtain(NFHS)/established(FIBA/NCAA) legal guarding position becuase to do that he had to orginial face B1 when taking his position on the court. But A1 has secured a legal position on the court and therfore is setting a legal screen.

And for all of you who are scratching your heads about a defensive player setting screens, the definition of guarding specifically defines it as something done by the defense. The definition of screening makes no disctinct between offensive or defensive players and specifically notes that the player with the ball can even set a screen.

ralph,
my opinion on this is:
1 if he is standing deep in the lane(nearly under the basket) and makes no attempt to defend the shot- no call or block.
2 if he is standing away from the basket-no call or charge.
3 if he is standing deep in the lane(nearly under the basket) and jumps to defend the shot-no call or charge.

i know everyone is about to rip me(because by nf/nc2a men this should be a charge), but this is how i see fit to officiate this play whether it is nf/nc2a men/nc2a women/pro.

Devils advocate Crew-

Ignore where he is on the floor. Being by the basket is immaterial. Let's say he is just standing there minding his own business, watching the cheerleaders and B1 plows him over from the side, do you no call that?

if the the defender is watching them from the under the basket-i would have a no call or defensive foul.

but that is just my opinion, several people disagree. you can decide for yourself how to officiate the play.

OK. So if you decided to use the NF/NCAA womens rule on an
airborne shooter player control foul in an NCAA mens game
would that be OK? If you decided to use the NF/NCAA men's
10 second count in an NCAA women's game would that be OK?
How about if you decided to use the NCAA women's closely
guarded rule in an NF/NCAA game? Hey, let's make everyone
use the new NCAA womens rule for lining up on free throws.
I know you don't like it but it's what I do. And I like the
way we used to administer FTs, so the C's gonna come in
and handle the first shot.

I aint ripping you, I'm just pointing out how silly this
sounds.

BTW, Mark DeNucci, excellent post in this thread!

I STRUGGLE WITH THIS
 

I think I understand the concept and legality of defensive screens. I also thoroughly re-read 4-23 to see if I could clarify what you presented. I still think this call falls into the area of officials judgment.

Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor, providing s/he is not undercutting an airborne shooter or any other opposing player that becomes airborne, for that matter.

My common sense dictates(Maybe I am off-target here)I have a PC here. Tweet, CHARGE! Am I missing something?

Where's Mark Cuban when you really need him?You really don't own ANY rulebooks,do you?If you ever do manage to come into possession of one(Fed,NCAA,whatever-),see if you can find something to back up your play calling.'Til then....

J.R.,
do i ever attack you personally, or accuse you of having poor judgement? i have not. i would appreciate it if you kept your snide little comments to your self or to private conversations, try to maintain a professional approach if you can!

J.R.,
do i ever attack you personally, or accuse you of having poor judgement? i have not. i would appreciate it if you kept your snide little comments to your self or to private conversations, try to maintain a professional approach if you can! [/B][/QUOTE]Crew,it's not personal at all.However,when you post things that are clearly wrong and are indefensible by any rulebook,then,yes,I am going to question your judgement and your rules knowledge.How can you have the exact same call at different points on the floor,and state that they should be called differently?Try this one-consistency!

Personal request.

If someone is going to recommend handling a situation that has absolutely no foundation in any of the commonly accepted rulebooks please note that in your reply and explain why you feel it is your perrogative to re-write the rules as you go. I am sure there are many like me (rookie) that come to this board in an effort to improve our knowledge and interpretation of the rules. Knowing who consistently makes things up as they go along will allow us to skip your post.

By the way Jurassic, last time anyone saw Cuban he was managing a Dairy Queen in Coppel, TX :D

Larry,I think most of us come here to improve our knowledge and keep up-to-date on the rules,whether we're rookies or vets.I come here for the same reason you do.There are a lot of sharp guys on this forum that can help anyone.I can certainly understand mis-interpreting a rule,especially the way that some are written.For the life of me,though,I just can't fathom the idea of calling the same play differently,depending on where the play happened on the court.My point was the same as yours.You can't make your own rules up as you go along.

J.R. and Larry,
yes my philosophy goes against the nf/nc2a mens rules. but this is what i have been taught at nc2a mens camps by nc2a mens officials. the logic is good, though the rule book does not support me. this philosophy has been discussed on this board many times by very high ranking officials. (eli roe, drake marques, bbarnaky, etc.) this is a higher level mentality that is accepted by college officials. i do not expect any new official to accept this philosophy because i thought it was bullsh1t when i first heard it as well. hope this defends my position better.

No,crew,that doesn't defend your position at all.If those other officials call this play the same as you,so be it.I certainly wouldn't agree with them,either.The rulebook(s) state that this specific play is a charge.The only judgement involved would be that you could no-call it,if in your opininion that was the right call.I can even see you and your "high-ranking" friends argueing that it could be a block,or a no-call.That wouldn't bother me,either.That's judgement,too.What bothers me is the philosophy that says that you and your buds would call an exact same play a charge in one spot on the floor,but a block if it happened in another spot.That is neither logical or consistent to me.I might be missing some of that "higher level mentality",though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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!)

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.

I had this one today.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Not sure I agree (but what else is new)
 

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

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.

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

Re: Not sure I agree (but what else is new)
 

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, I agree with you completely :eek:. 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.)

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.

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.

Nicely stated crew, nicely stated.

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.

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.

A different perspective...
 

You gentlemen have definately given me a different perspective on the call. I do see now how you MIGHT call a block, although I still would probably lean more towards the no call (is that sort of the consensus with the "dark side", the no call?) It is definatly my desire to advance beyond high school and even beyond D1 so I love to see the differing opinions.

Who started this, was it you W_sohl or was it you Ralph? WAY TO GO. Its one of you guys fault. So fess up. The dark side says "out-a-my-way"! the lighter side says "how dare you". And then there is me, I'm kinda in between. And i don't mean any funny stuff, so don't even think about it!

I dont believe in "dark side" "light side", was just using so that individuals knew who I was refering to at that time.

Man, you left yourself wide open with this comment. I will refrain myself and let the many retorts that come to mind pass.

We'll see if all the others are so kind :D

You are probably right. Even though i made it clear. I'm sure someone will give me grief.

I guess I did start this Bart. Now you see why I titled the situation "something that has always bugged me." I enjoyed and appreciate all the fine input from so many fine officials from the "dark" side and the "light" side. Thanks to all, Ralph.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I am not sure I understand what you wrote, but here goes...

I would either no call or have a block on a player under the basket. A player could draw a PC 10 feet away from the basket. So I guess I agree with crew. I don't think I understand the last question. A player not in position will not get a PC call--that is my whole premise.

I hope I answered your question.

Strips, Def. under the basket, Off. player starts about 10' away, any direction, crash. What do you have?

I'm going to come at this from a different angle.

In NFHS, it is clear that stationary defender B1 has a right to any place on the floor (I think that is the consensus). So, if a A1 crashes into B1 we have a PC or charge.

I don't know the fine points of NCAA, but I would guess that it is almost the same, according to the rule book.

Assuming by the book it is a PC or charge, shouldn't you current and future NCAA officials work at changing the mindset of your fellow officials to the book.

I believe we are obligated to try to follow the rules. How can you feel good about ignoring clear guidance in a rulebook? How do you have the moral high ground when judging other's behavior (ex: Howler Monkeys) if you are ignoring the rules?

I know you can't change things in a day, but shouldn't you try if you know better?

NCAA men's, the rule is the same as NF.

NCAA women's ball, however, has a note in its officiating guidlines which states, in part, "A defender who establishes a position directly under the basket . . . is not in a legal guarding position." While it may be an incorrect interpretation (just ask DeNucci), they at least have a "rule" unlike NCAA men who just call things this way.

I am not sure I understand what you wrote, but here goes...

I would either no call or have a block on a player under the basket. A player could draw a PC 10 feet away from the basket. So I guess I agree with crew. I don't think I understand the last question. A player not in position will not get a PC call--that is my whole premise.

I hope I answered your question. [/B][/QUOTE]No,you didn't really.If you re-read the threads,crew stated that a defensive player not in position would get a PC call in his favor if it happened in the paint up top.He then stated that the same player who is not in position,but has moved under the hoop,would now get called for a block.Note that it is the exact same play,but in a different location!My problem with this situation has got absolutely nothing to do with any FED/NCAA,dark side/light side,advantage/disadvantage philosophies.My problem is that you guys are saying that you would not call the same play CONSISTENTLY,dependant on where a player stands.If it's a PC one place,it should be a PC every place.Similarly,if it's a block one place,it should be a block everywhere.The only judgement should be whether you are going to no-call it or not.If you call it a block instead of a PC in similar situations,the players and coaches don't have a clue what to do out there.I just seem to get this picture in my mind of this happening to the newest red-neck Texas coach:-expletives deleted:
Bobby: "Ref,you just called a charge on my player at the other end.Now I get the exact same play in front of me and you call my player for a block.Wassup wit dat?"
Ref:Your player wasn't standing in the right spot at this end!A coach of your experience should know that."
Yup,I'd love to see that one.:D:
Bart's got the right idea.Time to leave this one,and let 'er die.

Any explanation from me would probably drag it on a while. I'll let it die. :D

another reason why i call a block on a player hanging out under the basket is because a lot of the time an offensive player will make a great move to beat his primary defender and make a great play to the basket. i am not wiping this play with an offensive foul because some secondary defender is standing under the basket doing nothing. fans, coaches, even myself, want to see these plays occur.

What are you talking about? What is your point?

my point is i am not calling a p.c. for a secondary defender standing under the basket.

The Enlightened Ones
 

I must ask some final questions (this has been bugging me):

If the the individuals with "higher mentalities" are so infuential, why don't they go through proper channels and have the rules changed to their way of thinking?

Could it be that they thirst for power they can't achieve legitimately, so they undermine the system by setting up a clique that cloaks itself in legitmacy? They say, it's for a "better" game, by "enlightened" officials. Then the ones who follow them feel special because they are "enlightened" also.

I wonder.

I want to try to end this. Bottom line, we all answer to a supervisor.

"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."

Why do I feel a massive wave of Deja vu coming on?;)
Bart Tyson's comment quoted above, to me,says it all.
Eli,Crew,myself,bbarnaky, and many other officials have similar philosophies when it comes to this play.
We like it! It works for us in the games we ref!
It works for the players and coaches in the games we work,
and (perhaps) more importantly, it works for our Supervisors! I do not believe that any of us "elightened"
officials have said that those who call it "by the book"
are wrong! We are simply offering our opinions based on our experiences.
As I have said before, both methods are legitimate ways to call, based on your level!
This board is, and has always been about offering individual
viewpoints on rules, plays etc., in an attempt to educate and improve those who chose to visit.
I have found it very valuable over the years.(even though I have been publicly flogged on more than one occasion.):eek:
Let's stick to constructive arguments and stay away from personal attacks. Hell, we're the only people who undertand why we do what we do. It's a rather unique fraternity.
Let's enjoy it!
Drake

Of course it works, I can get togther with a bunch of buddies and modify the rules any way I like, and it will work: What are the limits of this RULING-by-WHIM?

BTW, if you know a supervisor is wrong, shouldn't you be working at eventually changing his mind?

Also, if it sounds like I attacked you in my previous post, then you must have a guilty conscience; I attacked people with a certain mindset.


[Edited by Slider on Jan 24th, 2002 at 01:59 PM]

Re: The Enlightened Ones
 

slider this is a personal attack on everyone who disagrees with you on this play. as drake said we are only offering our point of view on the play, take it or leave it. you obviously do not agree with us. please maintain professionalism and keep the personal comments to yourself or private conversation. thankyou.

Lets kill this thread already, I'm tired of getting the posts on this one......lol

Crew, I can understand not calling the PC because of the philosophy that defending under the basket is not "legitimate" defense. I don't agree with that philosophy, but I can see that there is an argument for it.

However, you're not going to call a foul because it would make the game less exciting!!?!?!?!????!?!??!? WTF are you saying!!!!!???????????? Do you tell your supervisor "A1 traveled, but it was an interesting move so I let it go?" I cannot believe that any official would actually admit to following this sort of philosophy!! Whether you want a play to occur should not factor into the equation. What the fans and coaches think DEFINITELY should not be a factor.

Remember what Hank Nichols says: Style of play will NOT dicate officiating!

mark,
you are taking what i have said to an extreme. i am speaking of this particular play and none other.
this philosophy applies to only the situation i address.

Re: Re: The Enlightened Ones
 

Not at all, this is an attack on people who don't follow black and white, clear-cut guidance in the rule book, and claim a higher mentality; if they are only doing it to keep their job, I sympathize with those people.

But everyone who is purposely disregarding rules should, at the very least, be actively working to change those rules; OR they should change their officiating to match the rules.

I'm taking it to an extreme because this is extreme. No matter what the situation, letting a player get away with an illegal action because it "looks good" is as bad as penalizing a legal action that "looks bad." We can't let ourselves get carried away with the excitement and emotions of the game - that is why there are coaches.

If A1 cannot complete his drive to the basket without making illegal contact with B2 who has a legal position on the court then A1's great play is not very great.

This is the problem with many officials, mistaking an athletic move for skillful play. It does not matter how athletic a player is, if that athletic player cannot use his/her athleticism skillfully. I am sorry Crew, you are wrong if you incorrectly call a block on a defensive player who has a legal position on the floor and not the charge on the offensive player. Unless the rules are changed you will be always wrong. This is not a matter of using common sense or how coaches and supervisors want the game called. This is understanding the rules and applying them correctly.

There is nothing in the rules that can defend the position of officials who call a block on the posted play if the defender legally secured his position before the offensive player went airborne. And it troubles me (as well as members of the basketball officiating community that are far more learned than me) that there are officials who are promoting this type of incorrect officiating. I know that some of you make think that I am on a Dennis Miller rant but until the rules are changed a block cannot be called on the defender in this case.

I am trying to be as polite as possible without going nuclear. But some officials need to get with the program.

"BTW, if you know a supervisor is wrong, shouldn't you be working at eventually changing his mind?"

Hey, Slider.
Tell you what. You tell a Supervisor that the way he wants you to call a game in his league is wrong, and see how long
you work in that league!:confused:

I don't always agree with Drake, but I have to admit that I sort of chuckled at Slider's comment, too. If you don't like the way you're expected to call the game, then don't take the assignment. If you really feel compelled to "straighten out" the assignor, then make sure the door doesn't hit you on the butt on your way out.

Chuck

Chuck,
Be careful! You may have just taken the first step
towards the "dark side!" All we need is a little opening,
and WHAM! :D:D:D

Luke.... Luke... (Or is that Chuck... Chuck) the dark side is calling and it wont be long until you have joined those forces of the evil empire...Once you are seduced by the dark side no one will be able to control your darkness and allegiance to the Emperor.

The dark side's influence is everywhere. The Emperor's forces have started to open the door, oh yes the dark side has allowed us to bounce balls to players instaed of hand it in every time. One of these day's the long switch may lose itself to the evil one. Interrupted dribble is dangerously close to the evil side's "loose ball"

Be careful of it's influence. You might forget to put your hand up on a violation, or make an OOB call by pointing straight out (without the hand up stopping the clock). You might not bird dog every play. You might call the OOB on the lead's line when he is watching off ball and it skips out above the FT line extended. You might not make it to the sacred alter of the reporting box to report your foul. You might not put your fist up when calling a player control foul...
On no where's Yoda, and Obi-wan when we need him to ward off the forces of the dark side...

If the "Dark Side" is NCAA ball and the Emperor is Hank Nichols, count me in!!

if this is indeed a correct description of the darkside, then i am a Darth, Lord of Sith. though i feel i am a portrayer of good and everything that is good therefor i am a Jedi Knight. a Jedi named..............Skywalker

Ok guys, I will "fess" up and say I started the whole "dark side" comments and yes I was refering to the Star Wars movies. I think somebody else felt I was talking about something else at one point, due to their post. Funny and good stuff to read on a Friday for sure!!!

Have good games this weekend. I am looking forward to having a great game and experience this Saturday.

Regarding the Star Wars stuff, don't get too excited the next Star Wars "Episode" as they call them isn't due out until this summer, so be PATIENT!!!

They should add this to the officiating lines.

Referee the defense
Trust your partners
Call the obvious
Stay in your primary and......
USE THE FORCE!!!!

may the force be with you......this weekend during your games.

and with you...

I'm on a cell phone modem; I'm already in line for the new Star Wars!!!!

NOT!!!! :D

Good day to you, sir!

Obi-Wan-Ref: "There is no such thing as an over-the-back."
Coach: "No over the back foul."

OWR: "Stay in the coach's box."
C: "I will stay in the coach's box, or, if it is not approved by my state association, I will remain seated on the bench."

This could be a wonderful system!

DeNucci is right again!!
Pistol

So in all of this I guess DeNucci is the Emperor? Or is he Yoda.

Maybe Pistol can tell us. Pistol could be the Dirth or Young Skywalker.

Never saw the movie.

I see DeNucci as Yoda. Not because of the age and mixed up sentences (:D) but because he has mentored and taught so many other refs.

Your missing a classic. I would suggest some nasty cold or wet rainy weekend renting all of them. They are classic non-ficiton movies.

Of course I would also promote any of the Boston Celtic vs. 76ers matchups in the 80's between Bird and Dr. J.

"Non-fiction"? I had no idea that they were documentaries!!I will watch them in a whole new light next time. :D

Chuck

No wonder why coaches don't read their rulebooks. They think the book is a work of fiction!!