T-worthy?

[bigwhistle]

I agree with the logic of not calling the foul and giving Team A the ball out of bounds. The same philosophy can be used many many times on rebounds, where the ball is knocked out of bounds and the player who last touched it might have been bumped hard enough to have created a reason for the ball going OOB....give the ball to the team that deserves it and continue the game.

Sometimes after 30+ years doing anything, you just wonder if maybe it has passed you by, as the situation has changed over time and the mindset of past days of glory refuses to change along with the times.

[egausch]

Agreed. The inbound was going to happen regardless of whether the foul was called or not. My point is that inbounding in general, is an advantage for the other team. The foul goes toward offsetting that advantage, keeping things neutral if you will. As a coach I feel double wacked. No call and I have to inbound the ball, as opposed to, have to inbound the ball but at least the foul was charged. And if in the bonus, I've been wacked a third time with a no call. The foul caused the ball to go OOB. A1 didn't loose it or have it cleanly hit by the defense. Having to inbound here is the price you pay for poor ball control.
EG

[crew]

chuck,
i am going to agree with you on this one. if you can avoid a foul on a simple play as this one and give the ball back, do it. if the play was obviously out of bounds on A, then it would probly be better to call the foul. but if the play was not obvious go ahead and go with what you did, do it quickly and get the ball in play without delay. you kept the flow of the game going and "flow" is a big factor on how smooth the game is. if players can keep moving at a good rythm they are less likely to foul and the game will be more pure. a game without us HAVING blowing our whistle all the time is a good game, we are a "neccessary evil", no one likes us, and the less we have to step in the better. do not get this confused with let players maul each other to death and not calling the game properly. just a few thoughts.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
to Chuck: B1 fouled A1 causing the ball to go out-of-bounds off A1. You cannot justify giving the ball to Team A for a throw-in. You stated that Team A was not in the bonus and therefore would have just gotten the ball for a throw-in anyway. [snip] Those are not valid reasons for not calling the foul on B1, they are excuses for not doing the job correctly.

With due respect, Mark, (and I mean that sincerely) I simply disagree. I think, quite frankly, that those are valid reasons for not calling a foul on B1. We look at contact every trip down the floor and we have to ask ourselves, "How will that contact affect the play?" In my play, the contact affected the play by causing a throw-in for Team A. So, was the contact severe enough to warrant a foul? I honestly didn't think so. So I simply awarded the throw-in without calling the foul.

Sounds to me that you were not diligent in doing your job, you were lazy, and you did not want to take the heat from Coach B.

I would say, in my defense, first that I was much more diligent and put a lot more thought into my game than an official who thinks to himself "Ooo, contact. Must be a foul!" I'm not lumping you into that category, Mark, but I think that some thought goes into a play like this one.

Second, of all the adjectives you could've chosen, Mark, "lazy" is one that can NEVER be applied to me on the court, in a high school game. I didn't say that I didn't want to switch on the foul. I only said that the switch would be one difference (and a small one, at that) between calling a foul and a violation. If I had decided that it was a foul, then I would gladly have switched. Please do not form the impression that I would give up my mechanics to save a couple steps.

Last, heat from the coach was irrelevant in this situation. As I've mentioned previously, he'd been chirping all game, so his complaining was not new, it was just more obvious to the whole croud, which is why I decided to pull the trigger.

Chuck

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Lets have a little bit of a recap here.

B1 fouls A1 causing A1 to lose control of the ball which goes out-of-bounds having last touched A1. The covering official does not charge the B1 with a foul, this means the A1 has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds, meaning the Team B is entitled to a throw-in because of A1's out-of-bounds violation. But wait, not only does the covereing official not charge a foul to B1 he gives the ball back to Team A for a throw-in because if he had called a foul on B1, Team A would have only gotten the ball back for a throw-in because it was not in the bonus and it also meant the he and his partner (two-person officiating crew) did not have to switch. This is not just illogical, it is sheer nonsense and borders on unethical officiating.

I am tired of officials who do not want to do the job that were hired to do. If you do not want to officate correctly, do not officiate. I rarely take the side of coaches, but this is one time I am going to take Coach B's side. You claimed that he had been chipping at you all night and then you delibertly make an incorrect call so you do not have to swith and be on his side of the court, and then long distance T him because yelled at you in a non-threatening manner. The only thing that saved you tuckus regarding the technical foul is that Coach B was out of the coaching box. You bet I am going to rip you a new hole in your tuckus Chuck. Do the job correctly the first time and you would not have to make a posting to get your ego stroked about the T you are having second thoughts about calling.

I do not want to hear about flow of the game and about not being lazy. When you do not do the job correctly it is being lazy. John Cloughty (YSU alumni like me, go Penquins) says that there is not such thing as a "gut" call, either you make the call or you do not. Peter Webb (IAABO President) says much the same thing when he states that there is not such thing as a "no call," either you make the call or you do not. Peter also says that the officials job is to observe the play and when an infraction occurs stop play and issue the appropriate penalty.

[Mark Padgett]

Guys - I have to admit I'm on the side of the esteemed Mr. DeNucci, Sr. (someday I'd like to hear from Mr. DeNucci, Jr.). For those of you who think that giving the ball back to team A is justified, why do you think the NBA abandoned their "force out" rule, and why NCAA and NF have never adopted it?

Answer: because it's wrong.

I'm not saying to call all contact a foul. Far from it. I am saying, however, that either the amount of contact was enough for a foul, or, if it wasn't, then it's an OOB call on team A and B gets the ball.

If you want to call it the other way, you have "half a foul and half a violation" which, I guess, cancel each other out. If that's how you want to call these, then lobby the NF to put in a rule similar to the force out, which would, believe me, cause nightmares.

Until then, it's either a foul or a violation. You can't have a "no call" when the ball goes OOB, which is what some of you are, in essence, promoting.

[daves]

Wait just a minute here. Nowhere in Chuck's original post does it say the ball went off of A1.

Also as far as Mr. Denucci's reference to the wrist not being part of the hand, I beg to differ. Maybe your Webster's says one thing but my Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines hand as follows: The part of the body attached to the forearm at the wrist. It includes the wrist(carpus) with its eight bones, the metacarpus or body of the hand(ossa metacarpalia) having 5 bones and the phalanges (fingers) with their 14 bones.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
You claimed that he had been chipping at you all night and then you delibertly make an incorrect call so you do not have to swith and be on his side of the court, and then long distance T him because yelled at you in a non-threatening manner.

Ok, Mark, I get it. We disagree. You don't like the call. Fine. But I'm not going to let you get away with saying that I made the call so that I could avoid a switch. I made the call b/c I thought it was the right call. If I had decided that it was a foul, then I would have gladly -- joyfully, cheerfully -- switched positions with my partner. I am NOT one of these officials who says in pregame "No long switches". Ok? Have I made my point? The switch had nothing whatsoever to do with my call. Move on.

I never said that I wanted to avoid the switch. I only said that the switch was one difference between the foul and the OOB violation. I never said what you think I said. I never even implied what you inferred. Please don't bring up your erroneous assumption again.

Additionally, what's the "long distance" crack for? He yelled at me from across the court. What do you want me to do? Run over to him so he can whisper in my ear, and then T him up? I honestly don't get the point. If everybody in the gym heard him, then isn't that one of the main justifications for assessing a T?

When you do not do the job correctly it is being lazy.

This isn't even close to being true. Sometimes a person is just wrong, Mark. Maybe I was just wrong. I'll admit it's possible. But it's not b/c I was lazy. When you miss a rotation in 3-man, you're not doing your "job" correctly. But is it b/c you're lazy? Probably not. Probably you were a little too focused in on your primary and not in tune with your partners.

Your horse seems to be pretty tall these days, Mark. Join us on the ground once in a while.

Chuck

[crew]

by the way mark, "the flow of the game" is very important. us calling the appropriate calls is very important as well. if it is not an obviuos foul and if it is not obvious who touched the ball last-this is game management. it is not to be used on every play, but for the sake of the occasional play that is difficult to judge an official has his options open. gary z. used this same play tonite (wizards at kings) popeye jones bumped webber and they both touched the ball ABOUT the same(though webber touched it last) as it went out of bounds, what did Z. do? he gave the ball to webber, thus preventing a "game interuptor" he put the ball in play quickly and moved on and noone b1tched about it. this is something you may want to incorperate into your game! it could possibly be better for the game instead of calling cheap fouls.

though i do not agree with the tech given to the coach i would personally try to explain to him my thought process or ignore him.

another thing, just because a coach is out of his coaching box it is not an immediate technical. the box is a guideline for us to use to control coach behavior when it is out of line. if a coach is out of his box(not 20 ft on the floor) coaching his team, who gives a sh1t. its when he is out of box b1tching at us is when a tech should be called. even then he does not have to be in the box to get one of them. use the box as a tool for controlling volatile coaches. dont whack every time he gets out of the box.

i'm done whining now

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am tired of officials who do not want to do the job that were hired to do. If you do not want to officate correctly, do not officiate. I rarely take the side of coaches, but this is one time I am going to take Coach B's side. You claimed that he had been chipping at you all night and then you delibertly make an incorrect call so you do not have to swith and be on his side of the court, and then long distance T him because yelled at you in a non-threatening manner. The only thing that saved you tuckus regarding the technical foul is that Coach B was out of the coaching box. You bet I am going to rip you a new hole in your tuckus Chuck. Do the job correctly the first time and you would not have to make a posting to get your ego stroked about the T you are having second thoughts about calling.

I do not want to hear about flow of the game and about not being lazy. When you do not do the job correctly it is being lazy. John Cloughty (YSU alumni like me, go Penquins) says that there is not such thing as a "gut" call, either you make the call or you do not. Peter Webb (IAABO President) says much the same thing when he states that there is not such thing as a "no call," either you make the call or you do not. Peter also says that the officials job is to observe the play and when an infraction occurs stop play and issue the appropriate penalty. [/B]

Let me see if I got this right,Mark.Your basic premise is,that if it is in the book,ya gotta call it.Then you say that the only thing that saved Mark's butt on the T was that the coach was out of the box.That would certainly imply to me that YOU wouldn't call that particular T if the coach was in the box.Please note,from Chuck's post,that the coach was STANDING AND YELLING HIS DISAGREEMENT AT THE OFFICIAL besides being out of the box.I can't find anything in the book that says it is OK to yell at an official in a non-threatening manner.Strictly from the book,he has to be T'd under R10-4-1a,R10-4-1b,R10-4-1e,R10-4-1f and R-10-5.Aren't you violating our own original premise here by ignoring the coach standing and questioning the call?I think Peter and John would be very mad at you.
Btw,in certain situations I wouldn't call the foul in Chuck's case,either.I've done exactly as he did.Take your best shot!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

1) Chuck's original posting stated that B1 hit A1's wrist; the wrist is NOT part of the hand, and I am positive that there is a casebook play that backs up my ruling.

2) Hitting the dribbler on his wrist while he is dribbling puts the dribbler at a significant disadvantage. Stop trying to hide behind this horse manure of trying to save a foul and that the result was the same because the foul by B1 would not have put Team A in the bonus and you saved a switch with your partner. The result was NOT the same. B1 committed a foul and was not charged with it, and Team A is still one foul more from being in the bonus than it should be and B1 is one foul more from being disquailfied than he should be.

3) Flow of the game. Yes, every official wants his game to go smoothly. I had a men's college jr. varsity game earlier this year that had only four fouls between the two teams in the first halve. You did not have to tell me twice that it was an enjoyable first halve of basketball. Players dictate the flow of the game, not officials. If the players want to play stupid and commit stupid fouls, then guess what, the officials have to stop the game and assess the foul. This is not to say that officials cannot screw up the game sometime. But the foul by B1 was not a flow breaker. It was a simple foul to call and an official did not do his job and then had to T a coach.

4) Yes the coach should not have been yelling at the official and I am always irked when I see coaches out of the coaching box even when the are coaching. But the "flow of the game" in this instance dictates that Coach B in this play does not get a T. And this is coming from a person, who has coaches think that my middle initial stands for Technical Foul.

5) There are no valid reasons for not calling the foul on B1, only excuses.

6) And I do not apologize for taking no prisnors on this issue today. Officials have enough problems that are not of our making that we do not have to go out and generate more problems for ourself when we do not do the job we are supposed to do.

[Bart Tyson]

Lets see, the players, coaches, supervisors, and officials in the conferences I work prefer not calling a foul in this type of play. In fact they teach it this way in camps. Which means the conference wants the game officiated this way. As the old saying goes, "right or wrong the boss is still the boss".

[egausch]

It's very difficult to judge, in this forum, whether the call should have been made, or if the contact was severe enough. That's Chuck's call. Same for the T, IMO. But if Chuck thought it COULD have been called, A's coach probably thought it SHOULD have been called as well, and it sounds like B's coach thought it COULD have been called, based on his remark. So Chuck, here's a question.
If A1 was dribbling up the middle of the court and B1 contacted the wrist causing the ball to go wide but NOT OOB, and A1 had to run over and retrieve it, would you have called a foul?
In deciding this play vs. the OOB/throw-in play, note they are different from an advantage/disadvantage view. IMO, the disadvantage that team A would have to pass into 5 on 4 coverage should factor into the decision to some degree.
EG

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
4) Yes the coach should not have been yelling at the official and I am always irked when I see coaches out of the coaching box even when the are coaching. But the "flow of the game" in this instance dictates that Coach B in this play does not get a T. And this is coming from a person, who has coaches think that my middle initial stands for Technical Foul.

5) There are no valid reasons for not calling the foul on B1, only excuses.

[/B]

Mark,don't you think that these two statements above are kinda contradictory?There is no valid reason not to call the personal foul,but there is a valid reason not to call the technical foul-and you list "flow of the game"as an excuse?Why is that,Mark?Both are written in the rule book as fouls.Aren't you doing the same thing that you are giving Chuck hell for-using judgement?I can't follow your logic on this play at all!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
5) There are no valid reasons for not calling the foul on B1, only excuses.

Hmmmm, let me review my previous posts. Ah, yes. I think there are valid reasons for not calling a foul on B1 in this situation. In fact. . . let me check. . . yup, I even listed out some of those reasons.

Your turn. I can hardly contain myself waiting for the inevitable insightful, thoughtful reply: "No, there are no valid reasons for not calling a foul on B1."

6) And I do not apologize for taking no prisnors on this issue today.

In all seriousness, Mark, I would not describe your approach in this thread to be "take no prisoners". Rather, I would call it a "make no converts" approach. You write long, sometimes insulting, often repetitive, posts that really don't add much to the discussion.

The truth is that I had no idea whatsoever that this thread would focus on the OOB call instead of the T call. I am frankly surprised that anybody thought to disagree with the original call. Everybody that I've ever worked with or talked to or listened to at a camp has said that this approach is the right one. That's honestly not an exaggeration. Until this week, I have never heard anyone espouse your position on this situation.

So while I respect your opinion, I'm going to stick with the dozens or hundreds of officials that I know and respect personally and continue to call this play the right way.

Peace (where is Rut lately, anyway?)

Chuck