Penalty for unauthorized leaving floor

[Scooby]

Then try to avoid the coach.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You mean the signal for "I just screwed my career by calling that" ??

1) Horizontal index finger against the temple. Thumb perpendicular to the index finger.

2) Drop thumb towards the index finger.

3) Make an explosion sound.

4) Report to the table:

Color: Black & White

Number: R (soon to be U2)

Signal: Repeat 1-3

[BillyMac]

From Jurassic Referee: "The generally recognized concept is that advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations. In the real world though, there might be a few generally accepted exceptions to the generally recognized concept. Certain situations pertaining to 3-seconds is one example. This situation might be another."

Breaking News: I just looked out my window and saw several pigs flying by.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From Jurassic Referee: "The generally recognized concept is that advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations. In the real world though, there might be a few generally accepted exceptions to the generally recognized concept. Certain situations pertaining to 3-seconds is one example. This situation might be another."

Breaking News: I just looked out my window and saw several pigs flying by.

Breaking News: The pigs are chasing your memory loss.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...163#post344163

Note the lightbulb finally going on in BillyMac's head. Note post #3 made by myself. Note the consistency of philosophy.

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Breaking News: The pigs are chasing your memory loss.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...163#post344163

Note the lightbulb finally going on in BillyMac's head. Note post #3 made by myself. Note the consistency of philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac

The second part of his response did surprise me. He stated that he had attended several national interpretation meetings during the off season and that the NFHS was very concerned that many officials and many official organizations had taken these principles too far. The pendulum had swung too far to one side. Many officials and many official organizations had used the principle of Advantage Disadvantage to make up their own rule interpretations, in direct contrast to what the NFHS had intended in terms of how the game of basketball is to be properly played and officiated. Officials were acting like diners in a restaurant, selecting items (rules) that they liked from the menu, and not selecting items (rules) that they didn't like. According to Peter, the NFHS would like to see a more literal interpretation of the Rule Book, and would like to have these rules applied to actual game situations in that literal manner. It appears that Jurassic Referee and other members of this Forum are way ahead of their time. Officials like myself, and official's organizations, like my local Board, are going to have to move the pendulum back the other way.

Jurassic says:
Just for the record, Billy, I personally don't think that you can take any kind of simplistic view and apply it wholely to game situations. There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion(read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter. My point all along was that you just couldn't try to apply advantage/disadvantage indiscriminately to violations. Most violations must be called.

Zak says:
This is a quote from the old thread you linked. With respect to the part that I have bolded, and with no trolling intentions, how do you decide which violations you would not call?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by zakman2005000

how do you decide which violations you would not call?

Just ask yourself this simple question: Is it really a big deal? That's it, honestly.

The kid just palmed the ball in the backcourt with no pressure. Did he violate? Sure did. Is it really a big deal? No.

Dribbler just barely palmed the ball as he froze the defender to drive to the basket. Did he violate? Yup. Is it a big deal. Yes, it's a really big deal.

Free throw shooter took 11 seconds to make the try. Did he violate? Sure did. Is it really a big deal? No.

Offensive team takes 11 seconds to get over the midcourt line against a heavy press. Is it a really big deal? Yes.

Dribbler just barely steps on the out of bounds boundary. Did he violate? Yup. Is it really a big deal? Yes. Boundary lines are a big deal.

It may seem overly simplistic, and in some cases some people might say that it is a little bit arbitrary. And I can't argue with either of those objections. I can only tell you that it has worked for me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Dribbler just barely steps on the out of bounds boundary. Did he violate? Yup. Is it really a big deal? Yes. Boundary lines are a big deal.

Why? Let's say the player is in the backcourt and there is no pressure. The same conditions as for the palming violation that you would ignore.

Seriously why do you make a big deal out of having a toe on this line and not worry about having one on the FT line while attempting a FT? (Or substitute: a toe on the lane line for more than 3 seconds or barely touching inbounds during a throw-in (or not fully being OOB however one views it) or running the end line in the fc while on offense without the ball and putting half of a foot OOB).

What makes an OOB violation by a player with the ball so much more important in your mind than any other violation?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Seriously why do you make a big deal out of having a toe on this line and not worry about having one on the FT line while attempting a FT?

Because boundary lines are a big deal.

I told you that I'm unable to change your mind if you think they're arbitrary. I can only tell you that it works for me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Because boundary lines are a big deal.

You still haven't said WHY "boundary lines are a big deal."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just ask yourself this simple question: Is it really a big deal? That's it, honestly.

Or, ask yourself, "Is it a game interrupter?"

IOW, I agree with Scrapper on this. Both on how to call it and how it can't really be described. Maybe it has something to do with "what everyone else sees" and the philosophy of "it's better to miss something that did happen than to call something that didn't". For example, "everyone" can see the foot on the line. But, it's judgment as to whether that was a good dribble or palming. People count at different rates.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You still haven't said WHY "boundary lines are a big deal."

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by "arbitrary".

They just ARE a big deal. If you disagree, I can't convince you otherwise. But I am sure that they are a big deal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

They just ARE a big deal. If you disagree, I can't convince you otherwise. But I am sure that they are a big deal.

Did someone tell you that or did you just arrive at this conclusion on your own?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did someone tell you that or did you just arrive at this conclusion on your own?

Bob Jenkins made me say it.

Are you saying that you would ignore an out of bounds violation if you deemed it to be "minor"? IOW, you disagree that boundary lines are a big deal? Or are you just uncomfortable with my lack of rationale? Or is something else going on that I'm missing?

[Nevadaref]

I've expressed no reasoning for my questioning in this thread and you haven't articulated any reasoning for your expressed opinions in this thread.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've expressed no reasoning for my questioning in this thread and you haven't articulated any reasoning for your expressed opinions in this thread.

I agree. So is that it, then?

Ok, if you push me on it, I would probably agree with Bob's attempt at explaining it. Everyone can see that he stepped on the boundary line, and it's not something that is a judgment call. That might be why you "have to call that". But I think that boundary lines are a big deal, even if it's not an "obvious" call.