New interps Sitch # 10

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I haven't seen any female/male snarking in this thread.

Then I guess we'd better put some in.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

But simultaneous is not good enough to be a violation...

They must be the last to touch it BEFORE it gains BC status.

They must also be the first to touch it AFTER it gains backcourt status.

The BEFORE requirement is where this fails. Simultaneous doesn't equal before.

[Camron Rust]

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?"

And you believed him?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

While what you state may happen, it is far from commonplace. In fact, I tend to observe worse coach behavior in JV games where the oficials just don't have any game managment skills or make poorly chosen calls.

I've heard "stories" about coaches that I just haven't had any issues with. I simply don't have trouble with coaches.

Originally Posted by Smitty

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).

If it is who I think it is, he is well respected and is moving up relatively fast....passing a lot of people. The fact that he might be calling T's more than average is certainly not holding him back.

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

I know for a fact that our leadership has always backed up our officials. Sometimes that official may have made poor judgement but the commish doesn't ever tell the school that. It's handled internally and has the same impact as any other poor judgement would.

Your comment about evaluations and moving up, sadly, is all too commonly believed. (I NOT talking about you here, just in a general sense. In fact, this sort of attitude is not limited to officiating but is prevalent in any competative envirnment). Most people hold themselves back by trying to find what others are doing wrong rather trying to find what they are doing wrong. Sure, top officials make errors....and will continue to make errors. Everyone knows that..coaches, assignors, the officials....no one is perfect. Either they make fewer errors or the type they make are ones that all parties are more willing to accept. The job of moving up is recognizing where you fall short and addressing those areas. Part of that is accepting criticism (again, not talking about you because I know you're one to listen and want to improve). All to often critical evaluations are met with anger and disbelief. I've seen it and heard it. Too often the evaluatee just wants to be told what they're doing right, not what they need to do to get better.

[Smitty]

Our leadership does back us up - I will agree with that. But I do hear and see mixed signals from more "veteran" referees who try and give advice. Like you say, it's just a part of being in a competitive field. Some say to be tougher - some say be more lenient. There is no firm stance on it, and that is what bothers me. But these are the same people who do the evaluations, so you do what you have to do.

I mentioned that specific person (Tlieb) because just the fact that he is labeled for handing out a lot of T's is notable in and of itself. He is a friend and is moving up quickly and I like him. I just think the nickname is looked at more unfavorably than favorably as far as what it stands for.

The evaluation process in our association is just awful. It could be fixed, but no one seems to be paying any attention to it right now. Hopefully in a few years things will change - I hear some great ideas being tossed around, so I'm hopeful.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I mentioned that specific person (Tlieb) because just the fact that he is labeled for handing out a lot of T's is notable in and of itself.

Who do you think taught him to do that? It wasn't his Dad.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think they've got a bogus interp here....unless they're changing yet another longstanding rule by "interpretation".

If federal judges can change the laws of this country by doing that, why can't the NFHS?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your comment about evaluations and moving up, sadly, is all too commonly believed. Most people hold themselves back by trying to find what others are doing wrong rather trying to find what they are doing wrong. . All to often critical evaluations are met with anger and disbelief. I've seen it and heard it. Too often the evaluatee just wants to be told what they're doing right, not what they need to do to get better.

Camron, the problem is that there are certain "top" (and it's interesting, isn't it that all the top folks are guys?) who simply can't believe anyone could possibly be as good as they are, and they don't even try to help. They are polite and "encouraging" to your face, but what they tell you is meaningless at best or downright unhelpful. I know you don't believe this. But the fact of the matter is, it's true. I've seen them roll their eyes behind backs, and I've had a few things said directly to my face about myself and about others. The things I'm talking about aren't meant to give the official real advice, just to get themselves away from the "plebes". Comments like, "Just keep working hard", "Well, you just have to keep watching others" and "You need to really think about your goals and dreams." How is that gonna help me get better? Or anyone? Then they say that people just don't improve enough to "keep from embarassing the association at the tournament."

Sorry, you pushed my buttons. The bare fact is that there are some terrific people in our association who really want to "give back" and help people get better. Those folks tend to move up eventually and move out. People like Lea, Spitz and Hefty. There are other helpful and encouraging folks who haven't moved out, but they tend to be busy, and aren't always available to help. A couple notable exceptions are Simshaw and Frostad. Then there are others who simply want to stand on the pedestal, and stomp on the fingers of those who are trying to climb up the mountain. I won't mention names, but I'm sure you know a few of who I mean.

I know there are those who don't move up and just complain about how it's all politics and they don't take responsibility. But some of those who complain, have a legitimate beef. I'm thinking of a particular person who has been in the association 17 years, has worked a D2 national semi and only just this year made it to a hs tournament, and then only 2A. Ya gotta admit, that doesn't look good for the assoc. And you can't say his race wasn't a factor in that issue. If the point had really been to send "only the best refs" to the tournament, and to "protect the reputation of the association" this person would have gone to 6A this year, and a certain person who went to 6A (girls) wouldn't have gone at all.

It's NOT just about being the best ref. Association politics, gender and race and other outside issues do enter the equation. There's no way you can deny it.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But simultaneous is not good enough to be a violation...

They must be the last to touch it BEFORE it gains BC status.

They must also be the first to touch it AFTER it gains backcourt status.

The BEFORE requirement is where this fails. Simultaneous doesn't equal before.

Simultaneous would be the meeting of BEFORE and AFTER at the same time and place...I think you're making this way more difficult than it really is...and for the record, no I didn't believe the coach after T'ing him, and yes he was ejected several minutes later for arguing the same oob call with my partner.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Simultaneous would be the meeting of BEFORE and AFTER at the same time and place...

Only for the convenience of this rule. Nowhere else.

[Camron Rust]

[quote=rainmaker]Camron, the problem is ...[\quote]

Replying in new thread so that this one might get back to the original topic...

Association politics

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Simultaneous would be the meeting of BEFORE and AFTER at the same time and place...I think you're making this way more difficult than it really is...

No...Before and After have very clear meanings.

Let's say that the very instant that the ball was touched in the backcourt was with 4:23.000 on the clock. Simultanous is anything that happens exactly at 4:23.000. Before that would be 4:22.999. If the ball gains backcourt status at 4:23.000, the player would have had to touch it no later than 4:22.999 for it to be a violation. But then, it would have gained backcourt status at 4:22.999 and the player would have had to touch it at 4:22.998....

So, the player can never touch it before it goes into the backcourt at the same time as it gains backcourt status.

It is physically impossible in this universe to, at the same time, touch the ball before you touch the ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No...Before and After have very clear meanings.

Let's say that the very instant that the ball was touched in the backcourt was with 4:23.000 on the clock. Simultanous is anything that happens exactly at 4:23.000. Before that would be 4:22.999. If the ball gains backcourt status at 4:23.000, the player would have had to touch it no later than 4:22.999 for it to be a violation. But then, it would have gained backcourt status at 4:22.999 and the player would have had to touch it at 4:22.998....

So, the player can never touch it before it goes into the backcourt at the same time as it gains backcourt status.

It is physically impossible in this universe to, at the same time, touch the ball before you touch the ball.

Camron, I agree with you. Plus the actual text of the rule says that he has to be the last to touch the ball "in the frontcourt", not when the ball has frontcourt status. To me that means the player or his teammate would have to be "in the frontcourt" or the player has to have frontcourt status.

In this case the player has backcourt status.

[Adam]

Why does "in the frontcourt" have to refer to the player and not the ball?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why does "in the frontcourt" have to refer to the player and not the ball?

If it does refer to the ball we still have a conflict because of the word "before."
If the player is in the backcourt he was not touched "before it went to the backcourt."