Just looking for opinions.

Boys Varsity game. A1 dribbling along baseline, B1 reaches for ball, hits A1 on the wrist, ball goes OOB. Could probably call a foul on B1, but instead I simply award the ball OOB to A. Team A inbounds and scores. As B1 is dribbling from backcourt to frontcourt (I'm trail, opposite table), Coach B is standing at the table and yells to me "You missed that one, ref!" He wasn't angry or accusing. Just matter of fact.

I banged him.

What do you think, honestly? He'd been chirping for most of the game. But 1) at the table, 2) yelling across the court, 3) everybody could hear. I didn't feel I could ignore it. Was I too thin-skinned?

Not that it matters for this particular situation, but this is the same game in which I later DQ'd a player for punching an opponent.

Chuck

yelling across court. good call. If you were standing next to him and it was between you and him i would pass.

Your first mistake was not calling a common foul on B1. Your second mistake was charging a Head Coach A with a technical foul because you deliberately not called a foul on B1 when he committed a foul.

Remember the definition of incidental contact in both NFHS and NCAA. B1's contact was not incidental. The fact that you gave the ball back to Team A is no justification for not calling the foul on B1. Call the foul and you would not had Coach A chirp at you. Why call a technical on him when by your own admission he was angry or accusing (just out of the coaching box), which is a legitimate technical in and of itself.

OK mark, so you think if the coach is correct and you miss a call ( I don't know any coaches who can read a mind for intentionly not calling a foul) then its OK to yell across the court. Not everyone agrees with you about being a rule book official.

Just to be clear, Mark, the chirper was Coach B! The only mistake was that he didn't realize that I had just done him a favor. Instead, he wanted me to rule that the ball had deflected off the dribbler.

And, in my own humble opinion, I think that the fact that I gave the ball back to Team A is, in fact, a very good justification for not calling the foul on B1. The result of the play is exactly the same, except no foul is charged and my partner and I don't switch.

Notice that A1 is NOT put at a disadvantage in this situation. Either (a) A gets the ball and B is charged with a foul (but no 1-and-1), or (b) A gets the ball.

Seems to me, in this situation, you keep the game moving.

Chuck

Mark, with all due respect: PLEASE!!

Your first mistake was not reading the post. He banged coach B, not A. From there it gets worse. B1's contact, though none of us saw it for ourselves, sounds incidental to me. He hit A on the wrist which was in contact with the ball and the hand is part of the ball. If a player blocks a shot cleanly and contacts the shooters fingers do you call that a foul? I hope not. Your sentence "Why call a technical on him when by your own admission he was angry or accusing (just out of the coaching box), which is a legitimate technical in and of itself." is a massacre of English grammar and makes no sense.

Chuck, to me it sounds a little quick on the trigger, but none of us know the events leading up to this point. However, if he was at the table when he says this, he is out of his coaching box and this would warrant a technical. I usually try to warn them before giving this one.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devdog69

Quote:

Chuck, to me it sounds a little quick on the trigger,

Yeah, Dev, I thought so too, afterward. In my defense, the guy is just a complete idiot. No idea whatsoever about what's going on in the game. But I think you're right. I should have tried to talk him down, I think.

Chuck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by devdog69 Quote: Chuck, to me it sounds a little quick on the trigger, Yeah, Dev, I thought so too, afterward. In my defense, the guy is just a complete idiot. No idea whatsoever about what's going on in the game. But I think you're right. I should have tried to talk him down, I think. Chuck

I have to admit, I pulled the trigger too quick earlier in the year on a JV coach. (FS JV boys, Bruce) Very close game with 15 seconds left, I am trail. his team got two point blank shots at the hole and missed them both, team B gets the rebound and his team fouls to stop the clock, down by 2 with 7 seconds left double bonus. My partner called the foul, this coach takes about two steps on the court and says to me "we've been getting hammered down there all night, that's unbelievable". Tweet, whack. He acted like he expected it and deserved it but I definitely regretted it. The other coach had been vocal the entire game, but this was the first time I remembered hearing this coach's voice, guess it scared me.

I must be missing something, " He'd been chirping for most of the game. But 1) at the table, 2) yelling across the court, 3) everybody could hear. I didn't feel I could ignore it." If this isn't a classic T, then i guess i need a definition of a classic T.

First: I apologize for missreading (afterall as a basketball official I am blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other) Coach B instead of Coach A, but he was out of the coaching box, which is a technical foul, so Chuck gets a pass on the technical foul.

Second to devdog69: Read NFHS R4-S24-A1 and NCAA R4-S34-A2a,b, & c. These are the definitions concerning the legal and illegal use of hands and arms. The hand is part of the ball when it is in contact with the ball. The wrist is not part of the hand (see Webster's). When B1 made contact with A1's wrist even when the hand was in contact with the ball, B1 was guilty of a foul. Contact B1 with A1's hand that was in contact with the ball would not be a foul.

Third 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 (B1 was not charged with a foul when he should have been, that sounds like a big advantage given to Team B and B1 later on in the game), plus you and your partner did not have to switch. B1 was not charged with a foul when he should have been; the ball went off A1 and instead of giving the ball to Team B for a throw-in you gave the ball back to Team A. Coach B had a right to be upset with you giving the ball to Team A. Those are not valid reasons for not calling the foul on B1, they are excuses for not doing the job correctly. If you had called the foul on B1 you would have had to switch and be table side in front of Coach B. 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. And now you want validation for your technical foul on Coach B.

I must be missing something, " He'd been chirping for most of the game. But 1) at the table, 2)
yelling across the court, 3) everybody could hear. I didn't feel I could ignore it." If this isn't a
classic T, then i guess i need a definition of a classic T.
__________________



I'm just saying that "you missed that one, ref" does not always warrant a T in my book. If this happened at the first of the game with no previous interaction from/with the coach, I would probably let it go and try to talk to him quickly about staying in his box. I must miss more than everybody else, because I hear these sorts of comments all the time and don't think anything about them, it's all in the context and the circumstances of the situation.

[Edited by devdog69 on Feb 14th, 2002 at 11:55 AM]

Oh no, I agree, this doesn't always mean give a T if a coach yells this to you. I'm just saying in this situation, it did bring the attention of the official to give a T. Everyone has a breaking point, for this game, for this official, for this situation, the T is justified. Now i can think of situations where everything is the same and the officials does not give a T and i can live with it. By classic i mean, when an official has had enough and gives the T when i is justified.

Coach's Perspective
 

Not only did you give B a break by the no call, but the throw in also gives B an advantage. The team that has to throw in, is at a disadvantage, numbers wise. I agree the foul should have been called. Would the call have seemed correct if the inbound pass was intercepted by B?
Sounds like Coach B was losing!? Can't see any other reason to mouth off. Whack as you see fit! IMHO
EG

Re: Coach's Perspective
 

The throw-in gives B no advantage, b/c Team A would've had a throw-in at the exact same spot regardless of whether I called a foul or OOB violation. So yes, the call would still have seemed correct if the inbound pass had been picked off.

Chuck

I can see what Chuck is saying about the no call on the foul...and I can see what Mark T. is saying about causing further rough play.

I wonder if A1 thought it was a good no call when he got whacked on the wrist? Will he retaliate later and then be upset when the foul is called on him?

Another foul we let go as officials is the "over the back",or push from behind on a rebound, and the ball goes off the player that was fouled. We usually give the ball to the player that was fouled even though the ball probably touched him before going OOB...why is that?

BTW, I have done it myself this year a few times.

RD

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. :)

Coach's Perpective 2
 

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

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

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

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

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!

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.

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".

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

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!

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."

Quote:

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

Your reasoning for not calling a foul is what is wrong with the game today. B1 hacks A1 on the wrist and the ball goes out of bounds. Give the ball to A1 with not foul. That is pure nonsense. And teaching such nonsense in camps is horse manure. We have too many people who only care about what fans think about and making a buck (camp owners) than what is good for the game. The boss is not right in this case. We have too many officials now-a-days who are afraid to stand up and say: "Wait a minute Nelly! This is nonsense." But as long as officials will not stand up against this nonsense then we will have this type of contact not being called and the game will go to hell in a hand basket.

You guys can continue with this nonsense but if you officiate a game with me and let allow the play in the original posting I will find it hard to bail out your sorry tuckus. Not calling fouls because you do not want to interrupt the "flow" of the game is HORSE MANURE!

I teach new officials every year and I do a good job teaching them the rules, fundamentals of mechanics, and the fundamentals of how to apply the rules. Officials who promote this nonsense as presented by some in this thread do a diservice to the game and our profession.

Mark,your other direct quote before was "but the flow of the game in this instance dictates that Coach B in this case does not get a T".I do believe you just called your own advice "HORSE MANURE".I finally agree with you in this thread!:D

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I don't think this is a shock to you, but many will disagree with you. I think its a bit strange you think your way is the only way. I think it is a short minded to think it is a matter of officials standing up for themselves. For myself i think it adds to the game and makes it better.

[Edited by Bart Tyson on Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:01 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

We have too many officials now-a-days who are afraid to stand up and say: "Wait a minute Nelly! This is nonsense."

Kids today! Smart-aleck whipper-snappers! When I refereed, we didn't have no fancy Fox 40 whistles. We used pea-whistles. And we were thankful for 'em!! And didn't use no mamby-pamby V-neck shirts. We wore zip-up collared shirts. That's right. And if you weren't careful and you forgot a t-shirt, you had to zip it up and it'd catch your chest hairs and rip 'em right out!! And we liked it that way!! Rotten, ungrateful, kids oughtta listen better.

Hey!! Quit throwin' them eggs at my front door!!

Chuck :rolleyes:

Kids today! Smart-aleck whipper-snappers! When I refereed, we didn't have no fancy Fox 40 whistles. We used pea-whistles. And we were thankful for 'em!! And didn't use no mamby-pamby V-neck shirts. We wore zip-up collared shirts. That's right. And if you weren't careful and you forgot a t-shirt, you had to zip it up and it'd catch your chest hairs and rip 'em right out!! And we liked it that way!! Rotten, ungrateful, kids oughtta listen better.


[/B][/QUOTE]Hey,what's going on here?Now you're making fun of ME?Well,to HECK with you,Chuck!I now agree with Mark!:D

I forgot to add that us old referees never drank that sissy diet coke stuff,like you do.Heck,we didn't have diet ANYTHING in our day!Nope,real referees drink brownpop.Makes your shirt swell,but........I forget?What were we talking about?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 15th, 2002 at 07:53 PM]

Any one called a 7th or 8th grade game lately "by the book" without considering judgement on affects of flow, etc.? How many days did that game take? Or if you called every action that, by the book, was technically a foul, were there any players left to finish the first quarter? (And no bailouts by talking about disadvantage either. Those players are so lacking skill, generally speaking, that every distraction hampers them, and every contact affects them negatively.)

As for the original question on the T, it seems to me that there is too much missing information to decide. Was the chirping (before this point) when you were in front of the coach? or clear across the floor? How undermining was the chirping? (Some really is worse that others, but all of it undermines to some extent.) What gestures were associated with the yelling? Does the gym really permit the benches to be below the 28' mark, or do practical limitations narrow the distance between the bences and the table? (IOW, how far from the normal pacing zone was the coach?) Etc. etc.

I still beg to differ with you about the wrist not being part of the hand. Merriam Webster's does not say it isn't part of the hand and dictionary.com defines hand as: The terminal part of the human arm located below the forearm, used for grasping and holding and consisting of the wrist, palm, four fingers and an opposable thumb.

I have offered two legitimate references to the wrist being part of the hand and you have no refutation other than what you say. Unless human anatomy has changed since I went to college, the wrist is the proximal articulating surface of the hand.

Also you say you have a casebook reference to back up your ruling. Let's have it. I've looked through the casebook 3 times today and haven't found it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Excellent no-call! I think this type of call is perfect - a case of higher-calibre officiating. Coach B was complaining. What a dumbnut. I would only have T'd him if you had previously warned him for being vocal. Otherwise, this play would a perfect time to issue a (in private) warning, along with a nice "Coach, your player also fouled him on the play."

..Mike

The following definition of wrist is found in Webster's New World Dictionary of Americal English, Third Edition, Copyright 1988:

wrist (rist) n.: 1: the joint or part of the arm between the hand and the forearm; carpus.

The arm is made up of two parts: lower arm and upper arm.

The lower arm is connected to the hand by the wrist.

Which means the wrist is not part of the hand.

You gave me the definition for wrist not hand. I have given you 2 reputable definitions of hand as including the wrist. Look up hand and you will find that it includes the wrist. Might I suggest Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary and dictionary.com.

Goodness sakes!
 

Enough with the dictionary wars. I have a suggestion.

If you pass on the foul and award the ball as in the situation previously mentioned and the coach wants an explanation, a simple "hand on the ball coach" works great. He may say "He hacked the wrist", but "I saw hand on the ball coach."

If you call the foul and need to give an explanation, "He whacked him on the wrist coach"

No need to get in a tizzy over those old college anatomy courses, see it rather as another way to implement your judgment.

In most cases, I'm going with the first option, but there are a lot of variables, and saying "my way or the highway" about this hypothetical play seems to say there is no need to exercise judgment.

Hold a basketball in your hands. Your wrist will not be in contact with the ball. If the offensive player's hand is in contact with the all and a defensive player hits the offensive player's hand it is not a foul, but if the defender hits the offensive player's wrist the defensive player has committed a foul. The wrist in NOT part of the hand and it has never been considered part of the hand per NFHS and NCAA rules.

In 31 years of basketball officiating I have never heard anybody say the it is not a foul by a defensive player when the hit an offensvie player on the wrist of the hand which in contact with the ball. And there is a reason for that. It is a foul. I am sorry if I sound a little touchy but I am really tired of some of the nonsense that is being promoted by some officials that are devoid of logic and have no basis in the rules.

We're probably beating a dead horse here. Put one finger on the very end portion of your forearm(radius or ulna will suffice). Now move your finger 1 centimeter down toward your fingers. Your finger is now on your hand. Next question is where did your writst go? You didn't move from your radius or ulna to your wrist and then to your hand. The wrist is part of the hand. You told us in a previous post that you were sure there was a casebook reference saying the wrist is not part of the hand. What I'm wanting is that casebook reference please. Like I said previously, I looked all through the casebook 3 times and can't find it.

I think what really irritates me most about all this the accusations made toward officials being lazy for passing on contact that could or could not be a foul. We do that all the time as officials. It's called judgment. To categorically say that the contact was a foul when you weren't officiating the game and certainly have limited information about the contact is just plain wrong! If you're trying to say that you have never used your judgment in a game and passed on contact then I say there is a lot more of that horse manure going around.

Even though I agree with Sir DeNucci on the OOB call being wrong - I must admit I, too, am afraid to stand up and say, "Wait a minute Nelly." I don't want people laughing at me.

As to the other topic - anyone here ever get a wrist job? ;) That should settle it.

No Mark P, but it sounds intriguing.

Hey,what's going on here?Now you're making fun of ME?Well,to HECK with you,Chuck!I now agree with Mark!:D
[/B][/QUOTE]

Now, now. I'm not making fun of anybody. Well, almost anybody. But what I really was thinking about was Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live years ago when he used to come on the news segment as the "Grumpy Old Man" and tell everybody how awful things were in his day. And it always ended up bloody or with a stump where your hand (wrist) used to be. It was silly, but Carvey always makes me laugh.

Chuck

P.S. -- Plus we had to run upcourt. . . uphill!! Both ways!!

Feels like that NOW(sigh)!

Chuck, I too am surprised at the direction of this thread. I would have thought the real question would be if the "T" should have been called. Sorry, I have no imput on the Hand/Wrist controversy.

I think there are times that a coach "earns" a tech by his/her constant chirping throughout the game. You could have warned the coach prior to the "T", but I don't think it is always necessary. Earlier this year I had a similar sitch where a coach complained about every-other call. He really was not questioning my partner's or my integrety. He was not using profanity, but, even though he had been warned, he just never shut up. Late in the 4th as I am reporting a TO he comes walking toward me and making gestures. I can't hear what is being said, but enough already, WHACK! On it's own this may or may not have waranted the "T", but IMO it was the sum of his act that earned it.

Mike