Flop / No contact / travel

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Good point Snaqs, so the shooter was the team down in the game, doesn't change the fact though. He still traveled. You still have to judge the play and there was no contact on the play. The shooter choice not to shoot.

Yes, the shooter "chose" not to shoot. Travel is the right call.

Originally Posted by Old School

Now, if A1 would have shot, missed, and came down on the guy. I could call a block on B2 who's now on the floor, but A1 got to shoot the ball.

This goes completely against the rules. See Nevada's previous post in this thread for the reason. B2 is allowed this spot on the floor. Disagree with the rule if you like, but enforce it correctly.

Originally Posted by Old School

If he doesn't, my hands are tied, I can't make up stuff.

And yet....

Originally Posted by Old School

Now here's where I'm going to contradict myself. In college men's, B2 flops and falls to the floor untouched, however, he gives this loud, OOOHHHH!!!!! That will be a technical foul or a block, each and everytime he does that.

Why only NCAA? This is a technical foul at any level, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by V.I.

What I will do is try to get him out the game asap.

And tell me, All Powerful One, how are you going to "get him out of the game asap?"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. A "game interrrupter" is an unnecessary (albeit technically correct) call.

And does everybody know that? Or maybe do some officials just use it as a handy excuse to justify not making a call?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, ole smart one, I will argue that he flopped, therefore, he does not have LGP. How do you like that? So, after the shooter shoots, and lands on him, beep, block, after the shot.

By rule, if you deem it a flop, you need to call the technical foul. If you honestly think he was trying to absorb contact and fell in the process, you can't "honestly" call him for a block. It would take a serious lack of integrity for an official to do that, so I'm sure you wouldn't really do it.

Originally Posted by Old School

I will give you a clue, you only get 5 fouls. Use them wisely as the wise man said.....

Gee, if I didn't know better, taken in context, this statement seems to imply you'd call fouls just to get a player out of the game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And does everybody know that? Or maybe do some officials just use it as a handy excuse to justify not making a call?

(sarcasm=on)
Yes, "everybody" knows that. That's exactly what I meant.
(sarcasm=off)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And does everybody know that? Or maybe do some officials just use it as a handy excuse to justify not making a call?

With all due respect you do not have to agree with the terminology. That does not mean that others have to agree with you that this should be called under all circumstances either.

Peace

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Gee, if I didn't know better, taken in context, this statement seems to imply you'd call fouls just to get a player out of the game.

If he's not playing basketball.....got to go!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

If he's not playing basketball.....got to go!

You need no longer wonder why your integrity as an "official" gets questioned on this board.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You need no longer wonder why your integrity as an "official" gets questioned on this board.

I never did wonder. You can question me all you want, you can doubt everything I say, you can delete all my posts, it's nothing to me. Now my intergrity on the floor is a different story and you don't have to believe this either, but I have no problems on the floor. That's because I deal with my problems right away and reasonably, as required by rules. What I'm saying is if a team that's down by 20 happens to fall over you who has fallen to the floor accidentally, well, reasonably speaking, that's going to be a foul on you. That is why I don't have any problems on the floor.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

With all due respect you do not have to agree with the terminology. That does not mean that others have to agree with you that this should be called under all circumstances either.

With all due respect, I never did say that it should be called under all circumstances. Actually, I personally believe that they shouldn't be called under all circumstances. The circumstances will predicate whether the call needs to be made, not whether that call will interrupt the game in any way or not. I don't have a problem with the terminology; I do have a problem with the different interpretations of the terminology.

My point was there seems to be all kinds of different interpretations of what a "game interrupter" actually is. One official's "game interrupter" might be another official's "necessary call".

My biggest problem with the "game interrupter" appellation is that it is used to cover too many situations where it might not be applicable, and it is also being used to justify a failure to call obvious fouls and violations in the holy name of "game flow". I've asked officials why they let a coach get away with pounding a wall, and I've got that "game interrupter" response.I just don't think that a hard and fast rule can be made re: what is a game interrupter and what isn't. What might be a game interrupter in one game might be necessary call to keep order in another game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

With all due respect, I never did say that it should be called under all circumstances. Actually, I personally believe that they shouldn't be called under all circumstances. The circumstances will predicate whether the call needs to be made, not whether that call will interrupt the game in any way or not. I don't have a problem with the terminology; I do have a problem with the different interpretations of the terminology.

My point was there seems to be all kinds of different interpretations of what a "game interrupter" actually is. One official's "game interrupter" might be another official's "necessary call".

My biggest problem with the "game interrupter" appellation is that it is used to cover too many situations where it might not be applicable, and it is also being used to justify a failure to call obvious fouls and violations in the holy name of "game flow". I've asked officials why they let a coach get away with pounding a wall, and I've got that "game interrupter" response.I just don't think that a hard and fast rule can be made re: what is a game interrupter and what isn't. What might be a game interrupter in one game might be necessary call to keep order in another game.

Do people take a philosophy or a mechanic too far? Of course they do. There are a lot of philosophies I have seen over the years where people apply to too many situations. But I also do not think that everyone that says a situation is a game interrupter that they are evil either. Does that philosophy apply here? I think that applies to each situation. It is really easy to sit behind a computer screen and referee a game. I just think that sometimes we cannot just dismiss every point of view simply because there are people that might take that philosophy too far at times. Just like anything else officials can get in trouble if they do the wrong things. If officials do not call an obvious violation in a game this in my opinion would apply to me as doing the wrong thing. But even the word "obvious" has different meanings to different people. After all this is not an exact science either.

Peace