Perhaps you should consider that this situation was brought up in an Internet chatroom. Is that not what this place is for? You act as if I am going to go out tonight and look for a reason to make this call. In reality, I'll probably never face this situation. I am not "worried" about it in the least. It was a situation that I had questions about, so I brought it here.

As officials, there are rules that are clear and calls that must be made that require no judgment (double dribble, 3-seconds, backcourt violation, etc...). There are others that do require judgment (block/charge, unsporting conduct, etc...). For an official to make sure that he is making the right judgment call in no way reflects on his ability to make "fundamental" calls.

I meant that Woody said "Good Luck with that" to the Rev saying he THOUGHT that the act was unsporting. I'm asking would it make it easier if the official said he JUDGED it unsporting. This question is important because I'm not good at dealing with coaches, and I'm always trying to get better at it. I know that the wording can make a huge difference.

The reason the thread keeps going and going is that I don't have a life right now, and I"m having fun counting angels dancing on the head of a pin......

But I see your point. I'll go do a Sudoku now, and leave the Rev to defend himself. He's doing pretty well...

Coaches? Who cares.

If you believe, think, judge, opine, suspect and/or in any way detect that something is unsporting address it.

The coaches will agree or disagree. That's not your problem to fix.

Exactly why I have asked several questions since joining this forum. I have learned much and am a better official for having read here.

I've tried my best to deflect this away from me (who was not involved in the situation) and to the scenario I witnessed as a spectator. It seems that others are making this personal, calling my ability to make decisions into question. I assure you, my decision-making ability (thus far) has not been a problem. Had I not left the state of Kansas, I would be working post-season games based upon recommendations from the coaches themselves.

I do understand that some here have advised that, in the event that I make the decision explained in this thread, that may jeopardize those recommendations. I have certainly taken that under advisement.

Its a problem because it is bogus. :D

There were years where I listened to veterans and shut up. I watched how they dressed for games, how they officiate and other things. I really feel like that is missing now. You tell me how to motivate someone who knows they are going to get games regardless of how good of a job they do? You tell me how to get officials to show integrity for the game - do the right thing for 32 or 40 minutes every time out. You tell me how to get someone to be a good partner or at least attempt to improve on their partnering skills. You tell me how to get someone to pay attention to what the heck they are doing on the court. If you can tell me how to do that, I will shut up. Consider those of us here the vast minority. There are officials who don't know anything about this board that are butchering high school games nightly. For many, the only thing that matters is more games and more money.

It isn't even Thanksgiving yet and I've had enough of these officials here (Mississippi). Tonight I'm working with a guy who runs his yap all the time, but cannot officiate! I already know this. I want to be positive, but I know something is going to happen and I could be the one put into the trick bag because I want to make sure both teams have a fair shot at winning the game.

Thank you Rainmaker, now I can probably lighten up since I've go that off my chest! :D

Most, but certainly not all, unsporting technical fouls are judgmental in nature. Some (like swearing at an official, kicking the ball in the stands, pushing an opponent when the play is over, etc.) are no-brainers. They're automatic T's. Other unsporting technical fouls depend on the individual official's tolerance towards certain acts. This thread is probably a heckuva good example of that. The good Reverend obviously has a lower tolerance towards the defender's actions than a lot of other posters, including myself. As I said before, we probably should never let a personal bias enter any call that we make. That's just day-dreaming on my part though, to be quite honest. Everybody sets their own standards as to what comprises unsporting behavior. Those standards vary tremendously. Who's right and who's wrong? Probably no one imo if we all end up getting to the same goal....giving the coaches and players a <b>fair</b> game. And if we are consistent in our judgments at both ends, coaches and players will know what they can or can't do. That's always fair, whether the game is being called strictly or loosely.

Re: this situation, I can only tell you what my own personal opinion is. I think that you should just watch the play and see what develops. If the defender gets some bumps in or yaps a little, call it. Let them know that you're keeping an eye on them. If the defender's main goal is ball denial, then I'm not going to put the defender at an unfair advantage either. If I can't think up a rule to apply, then I ain't gonna make up a new one. The defender deserves to be treated <b>exactly</b> the same as his opponent.

Jmo, but I think that this a time to be reactive, not proactive.

My tolerance is much higher with the coaches than it is with the players. I can count on one hand the 'T's' I've given a coach. Please remember, I never stated that I would handle this situation with a 'T;' I would simply back him up a step.

Well said. This is exactly how I would handle the situation. Sadly, the officials (two) did not monitor the situation (at least not in the first half. I left at half time to take my wife on a date ;) ).

For what it is worth, I explained this situation to my two partners this evening. Nate - an official from Little Rock for 17 years - said that he would "sit the player down until he's ready to play defense." Obviously, I do not agree with this action. Basically, he was saying that he would not allow it.

Luke - an official from Hot Springs for 4 years - said that he would allow the defense when his team was on defense but not during dead balls or when his team was on offense.

LOL!!

The range of opinion and judgment is so interesting, and it's one of the most fun things about officiating -- as long as it doesn't get too personal. For some reason, this cheers me up enormously. I suppose I should move to Arkansas where at least three officials share my views about this situation.

It sounds like good defense. If there's contact then officiate the contact.

Oh, now we understand why you believe that this should be a T. :D

Seriously, this topic has sparked a good discussion about judgment and discretion in officiating. You have expressed your thoughts and others have responded with theirs. All that is now required is for you to give some consideration to these varied opinions and let this process further your background in making future judgment calls. Whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed by anyone else in this thread is not important. Whether you spend some time in reflection thus improving and preparing yourself to better handle future situations that you will encounter as an official is.

Best wishes.

I can't agree with it either. He has no rules support for taking such action. In fact, he is clearly overstepping his role as a game official. Sounds like someone on a power trip to me.

How can Luke dictate to a player what he can and can't do when his team has the ball? :(

This person seems a bit inexperienced and clearly needs to learn some things. I seem to recall a statement to the effect that guarding doesn\'t just take place against the player with the ball. At the moment I can\'t recall where I saw it. Perhpas in either the case book or an NFHS interp. I\'ll try to locate it.

Furthermore, there is currently a big discussion regarding when a team is, in fact, on defense which would put this official\'s stated criterion to the test. The central crux is does defense occur when neither team has team control? For example, during a throw-in. If A1 is attempting to inbound, would Luke forbid B2 from fronting A2 as close as possible?

Great advice - Thank you.

Simply but, this sort of tactic when the ball is not in play is not basketball. There is no place for it on the court and to allow it is to open the door for much worse. Call it preventative officiating but this sort of act WILL lead to a fight. If the ball is not in play, I consider this taunting.

I admit that I have not read all of this thread - it\'s way too long and I\'m, well, I\'m not really busy because I\'m a teacher and it\'s the last day before a 5-day weekend and the kids are taking a test but that\'s beside the point...anyway, why would this not fall under the heading of "making a mockery of the game"? If A1 is \'defending\' B1 while A has the ball or at other times when there is no need for defense to be played, why would that not be a mockery of the game? Seems to me like it has no place on the court and I believe I would take care of it early.

Mockery - or should that be "travesty"?? Either way, I don\'t believe I would let it continue.