Turned down the opportunity to call "Delay Return to the Court" T yesterday.

[ca_rumperee]

CYO 7th graders. I'm lead. Hand ball to the inbounder. I initiate count, he passes it in... but something feels strange... kid stays OOB for a couple of counts, then slides behind be to the corner, catches and shoots.

I did not know for certain that this was a calculated move on his part, so made no call. I did talk about him later, saying that if he delays on purpose...

Anyways, that one is still on the "haven't called yet" list.

[Nevadaref]

Unfortunately, you missed this call and allowed that kid to gain an unfair advantage. He cheated and you should have penalized him for it.

[grunewar]

I haven't had the "opportunity" to make this call yet either.

Now, seeing as I work mostly MS/F and Rec Ball, the first time I do get the "opportunity" to call this, I can just imagine the next thing I'm gonna hear will sound something like....."What? You've got to be kidding me?" Which I hope isn't bad enough to get a WHACK!

It may be the right call, but the fact that it's seldom used can always cause, ahem, momentary irritation......

[Junker]

I would like to see this changed to a violation so it does get called. To me it is similar to being oob. I called it once in a weekend tournament game. Had to as the shot that was hit put a team up 1 with 3 seconds remaining. It was an obvious one although few people know and understand the rule.

[Back In The Saddle]

I agree. The Fed finally wised up/caved in and made leaving the court a violation, after a year or so of making it a POE while it was still a T. When that didn't work, and it still wasn't being called, they had no choice but to change it.

As long as this remains a technical foul, I and many other officials will not call it. If the Fed reduces the penalty, it'll start getting called more.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I agree. The Fed finally wised up/caved in and made leaving the court a violation, after a year or so of making it a POE while it was still a T. When that didn't work, and it still wasn't being called, they had no choice but to change it.

As long as this remains a technical foul, I and many other officials will not call it. If the Fed reduces the penalty, it'll start getting called more.

I agree

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unfortunately, you missed this call and allowed that kid to gain an unfair advantage. He cheated and you should have penalized him for it.

C'mon, I don't think I'd call him a cheater.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I agree. The Fed finally wised up/caved in and made leaving the court a violation, after a year or so of making it a POE while it was still a T. When that didn't work, and it still wasn't being called, they had no choice but to change it. As long as this remains a technical foul, I and many other officials will not call it. If the Fed reduces the penalty, it'll start getting called more.

Agree. The NFHS made a similar change with the excessive swinging of the elbows rule. When it was a violation we called it. When it became a technical foul we didn't call it enough, or even waited for contact and called a common, or intentional, personal foul. Now that it's back as a violation, we call it again.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fullor30

C'mon, I don't think I'd call him a cheater.

I would and did. The kid did something deemed to be deceitful. That's called cheating.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

As long as this remains a technical foul, I and many other officials will not call it. If the Fed reduces the penalty, it'll start getting called more.

Originally Posted by deecee

I agree

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

to you. Just because someone from higher up hands something down doesnt mean we have to buy in 100%. In this case the FED got it wrong and I disagree with the punishment for this offense. You can call it and I wont judge you on that. I would prefer it changed to a violation. so take your and stick it...

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would and did. The kid did something deemed to be deceitful. That's called cheating.

It's a violation, nothing more. Please cite rule referring to cheater.

Why don't you drag him to the town square and brand him with a scarlet 'C'?

Sorry, you're a little pompous on this one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fullor30

It's a violation, nothing more. Please cite rule referring to cheater.

Why don't you drag him to the town square and brand him with a scarlet 'C'?

Sorry, you're a little pompous on this one.

First, it's not a violation. It's a technical foul.
Secondly, the reason that this is the penalty is that the NFHS deems this to be "unfair, unethical, [or] dishonorable conduct" and thus warranting an unsporting technical foul per rule 4-19-14. If that's not tantamount to cheating, I don't know what is.

I guess you agree with little deecee who thinks that he knows better than the experienced NFHS committee. If you want to call someone pompous, I suggest that you look in his direction. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to make the correct call in this situation.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

First, it's not a violation. It's a technical foul.
Secondly, the reason that this is the penalty is that the NFHS deems this to be "unfair, unethical, [or] dishonorable conduct" and thus warranting an unsporting technical foul per rule 4-19-14. If that's not tantamount to cheating, I don't know what is.

I guess you agree with little deecee who thinks that he knows better than the experienced NFHS committee. If you want to call someone pompous, I suggest that you look in his direction. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to make the correct call in this situation.

Late night post, meant to say technical foul. We're dealing in semantics and your's are over the top.

Believe as you wish.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Experienced NFHS committee.

Is this the same "experienced committee" that changed the rule a few years ago to now allow coaches to call, OK, I really mean request, time outs during situations when the attention of all two, or three, officials need to be on the ten players, like during a trap, just previous to a held ball, just before an official is about to call traveling, a foul, out of bounds, a five second count, a ten second count, etc.

I this the same "experienced committee" that failed to proofread the rule book a several years ago, and "accidently" left out the lineup request when several substitues enter at the same time, and had to put it back in the rule book a few years ago.

I would like to know who is on this "experienced committee", officials, coaches, athletic directors, interpreters from various officials organizations, boards, or associations?