New interps Sitch # 10

[Mark Padgett]

Here's how Juulie's conversation would go in our rec league:

Coach: "How can that be a violation? It was touched!"

Juulie: "Go argue with Mark."

Coach: "Oh. Never mind."


Here's an even more likely scenario:

Coach: "How can that be a violation? It was touched!"

Juulie: "Go argue with Mark."

Coach: "No thanks. I want to stay in the game (or "the league").

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But as I pointed out, it matches exactly the criteria for the ball gaining out of bounds status. If you're standing out of bounds and you catch the ball, then you caused the ball to be out of bounds.

If you're standing in the backcourt and you catch a ball from the frontcourt, then you caused the ball to be in the backcourt.

I don't really like it either, but I can see the justification.

The only problem with that is that causing the ball to go into the backcourt is not a violation....be being the team that is the last to touch before...and the first to touch after is the violatoin.

[Ref in PA]

So, If I understand this correctly:

A1 is in the backcourt, near the division line. A1 attempts to throw a pass to A2 who is in frontcourt. B1, defending, is in A's frontcourt near the division line and jumps up and blocks the pass, which hits A1 on a fly who is still in backcourt.

This play would be a violation according to the way the interpretation given, correct?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Or even,

Coach: What!?!? B touched it! Didn't you see that??

Me: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: But B touched it! what's going on here? How can you call that?

Me: Coach, the ball didn't have BC status before your player touched it.

Coach: That's just mumbo-jumbo. You're trying to make an excuse because you weren't really looking. It's ridiculous. That was not a violation! I've studied the rules for years and you can't call that!! What's going on here?

Me: Coach, we're going on with the game now. Please remember your box.

Coach: Don't try to brush me off!! You can't even explain that call! It's just too awful for words! Why can't you even tell me what she did wrong?

Me: Coach, I've heard enough. Get back to the bench and your players.

Coach: You're terrible!! You have no clue!! Why isn't your partner bailing you out here?!?! You aren't even listening!!

Me: (thinking, 'Please don't make me do this') Whack!

Exchanges like this just serve to cement my opinion that Oregon officials take WAAAAyyyy too much crap from the coaches.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only problem with that is that causing the ball to go into the backcourt is not a violation....be being the team that is the last to touch before...and the first to touch after is the violatoin.

And those two things happen simultaneously in this scenario...the ball still has FC status until it touches something in the BC. So by player A running back there and catching it, thay ARE the last to touch a ball with FC status AND the first to touch the ball in the BC - all at the same time...as Scrappy-doo pointed out, it's the same as catching a deflected pass while standing oob...

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Exchanges like this just serve to cement my opinion that Oregon officials take WAAAAyyyy too much crap from the coaches.

This is very true. I'm in the Portland Association and completely agree with you. I myself allow too much crap. But until the powers that be, and the upper echelon of refs, in our association practice better crap management themselves, it isn't likely to change anytime soon. I am guessing that Oregon is not the only place where too much crap gets taken.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Smitty

This is very true. I'm in the Portland Association and completely agree with you. I myself allow too much crap. But until the powers that be, and the upper echelon of refs, in our association practice better crap management themselves, it isn't likely to change anytime soon. I am guessing that Oregon is not the only place where too much crap gets taken.

And you're not alone.....

FWIW, I think this is a bad interp. In keeping with the theme, I sincerely hope someone will get their head out, wipe the crap out of their eyes and correct it.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Smitty

This is very true. I'm in the Portland Association and completely agree with you. I myself allow too much crap. But until the powers that be, and the upper echelon of refs, in our association practice better crap management themselves, it isn't likely to change anytime soon. I am guessing that Oregon is not the only place where too much crap gets taken.

I know you take way more crap than we do north of the river...pretty much every time I have officiated an Oregon team that has come across the river to play one of "our" schools, I have had to T someone on the coaching staff - and they always seem so surprised...One coach several years ago didn't like an oob call one of my partners made and stands and yells "That's Bullsh!t". After I whistle and whack him, he turns to me and says "What, don't you guys give warnings first over here?"

[Smitty]

It's a real drag that it is the way it is. But there's so much cronyism between our refs and the Varsity coaches (coaches get a vote in the state tourney selection process) that we tend to be a little gun shy to call the T. At the lower levels I don't see it being a problem as much. And if you do start calling a lot of bench Ts you get branded in a "humorous" but not so humorous way (see user Tlieb who is also from our association - guess what the T stands for). Until we get leadership that will back us up every time and be consistent throughout the whole association as far as evaluations and the process to move up in the association, I'm afraid not much will change.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I know you take way more crap than we do north of the river...pretty much every time I have officiated an Oregon team that has come across the river to play one of "our" schools, I have had to T someone on the coaching staff - and they always seem so surprised...One coach several years ago didn't like an oob call one of my partners made and stands and yells "That's Bullsh!t". After I whistle and whack him, he turns to me and says "What, don't you guys give warnings first over here?"

Sheez, dj, that guy is pulling the wool over your eyes. No one around here will put up with that, and we don't give warnings for it either.

The problem for me is to strike the balance between "management" and "putting up with too much" between "being T-happy" or thin-skinned and being reasonably firm. I just don't get that balance very well at all.

My problem with this rule isn't just explaining it, it's that it hasn't been called this way, has it Camron? It's certainly not how it's been explained to me. I guess I'll be trying too hard to explain because I sympathize with the coaches. Yech, I say.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I guess I'll be trying too hard to explain because I sympathize with the coaches.

Oh my......

Sympathizing should never be a factor when it comes to officiating. You can sympathize, but if you let that influence how you respond to a coach, then you are letting your emotions become a factor.

Jmo.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Sheez, dj, that guy is pulling the wool over your eyes. No one around here will put up with that, and we don't give warnings for it either.

I agree Juulie, anything like that would be an instantaneous T. It's probably along the lines of "no one else has ever called that" & similar statements we hear from some coaches - the only BS around is coming from them.

This interp is about the dumbest thing I have seen from NFHS in years....IMHO of course......

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh my......

Sympathizing should never be a factor when it comes to officiating. You can sympathize, but if you let that influence how you respond to a coach, then you are letting your emotions be a factor.

Jmo.

JR, I'm not saying it should be that way. I know it shouldn't. But emotions are always a factor for me. They just are. It's not a question of whether or not emotions are a factor, it's a matter of trying to manage that.

And just to cut short some of the obvious female/male snarking, I'd just like to point out that emotions are ALWAYS a factor for everyone in everything. I've seen a lot of refs who got themselves into serious trouble by pretending they didn't have any emotional stuff going on when in fact, there was. I've never known anyone who doesn't have emotions of some sort or other in many situations. It's just a question of not letting the emotions get the control.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I've never known anyone who doesn't have emotions of some sort or other in many situations.

But Juulie, you've worked with me.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

JR, I'm not saying it should be that way. I know it shouldn't. But emotions are always a factor for me. They just are. It's not a question of whether or not emotions are a factor, it's a matter of trying to manage that.

And just to cut short some of the obvious female/male snarking, I'd just like to point out that emotions are ALWAYS a factor for everyone in everything. I've seen a lot of refs who got themselves into serious trouble by pretending they didn't have any emotional stuff going on when in fact, there was. I've never known anyone who doesn't have emotions of some sort or other in many situations. It's just a question of not letting the emotions get the control.

Juulie, I'm just giving you my own personal observations, and male/female stuff isn't a part of it. I haven't seen any female/male snarking in this thread. Imo the more competent officials never(well, hardly ever, maybe) let their emotions play any part in how they officiate a game. Emotions are not a factor when it comes to how they handle any particular situation. It's got nothing to do with being a hardazz either. You simply react to whatever is coming at you at any particular time in a way that your training/experience tells you is the best way to react to keep the game under control and moving.

It's a question of never letting your emotions be a factor in the way that you officiate a game. And that certainly includes going out of your way to explain something just because you "sympathized" with somebody. That was my point. And it's also jmo fwiw.