The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   A first for me last night. (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/42195-first-me-last-night.html)

ca_rumperee Sun Feb 24, 2008 01:31pm

A first for me last night.
 
I'm trail away from the table.
Player A1 is trapped by B1 and B2, B2 reaches and punches the ball out of A1's hands.
I blow the whistle and announce that we have the "rare violation -- striking the ball with a fist." Gave the "kick" mechanic. Inbounded at the table right in front of both coaches in a very quiet gym.
Both coaches were bemused. Both said they had never heard of that one.

I ripped them both a new one and told them "to read their g*d-d*mned rule books and study their m*&^th%f$%^&ing case books until they had infected, paper-cut riddled paws before they ever show that sort of lack of knowledge in my presence again!"

-- actually I didn't say that.

Werd.

BillyMac Sun Feb 24, 2008 02:12pm

Punch Ball, Round Two ...
 
I posted this last month:

"Boys prep school varsity game. Team A had throwin on the endline after a field goal by Team B. No back court pressure from Team B. A1's throw in pass goes to A2, who "punches" the ball back to A1 who is now in bounds.

Why? I'm not sure, but I blew the whistle. Somehow this rule came to me from the deep recesses of my brain. It was a reaction call. After the whistle, I got kind of flustered. I don't think that I gave the stop the clock signal. I tried to make up a signal by punching my two fists together. I did call out the correct color, and pointed to the designated spot.

After the game, we, that is my partner, and the two officials who followed us as part of this boy-girl, varsity doubleheader, discussed the call, and decided that the call probably should not have been made. OK. I understand the spirit and intent of the rules, and the advantage, disadvantage, philosophy, and I agree, I probably shouldn't have made that call. I don't know if this is important, but Team A won the game easily.

After my game, I stayed around to watch the girls game. The athletic director, and A2, the offender, politely approached me and asked, "Why" is it illegal to punch the ball, the key word here is "Why"? I responded that I didn't know "Why", but that is was a real rule, and I took out my rule book, and showed them the rule, which includes the more commonly called intentional kick violation. The athletic director advised the young man, who will be playing for UMASS next year, to keep this rule in mind when he plays in college next year, to which I replied, that I'm not an NCAA official, and it may, or may not, be an NCAA rule.

My question: According to the spirit and intent of the rules, and the advantage, disadvantage, philosophy, if I was mistaken in calling this violation, then under what conditions would this violation be called correctly, again, according to the spirit and intent of the rules, and the advantage, disadvantage, philosophy. In other words, why is this rule in the rule book, if it's never, or almost never, called?"


After reading several responses from Forum members, and after talking to my board's interpreter, it seems that this violation should be called under the following circumstances:

1) When the ball is punched while players are crowded around the ball. In this case it's a safety issue.

2) When the punch causes a team to gain an advantage, i.e., when a player who is about to receive a pass is trapped, and he, or she, punches the ball to avoid the trap.

In my case, only one player involved, no real advantage gained, by the spirit and intent of the rules, I shouldn't have called the violation.

In ca_rumperee's situation, more than one player, possible safety issue, advantage gained by defense, I believe it's a "classic" fist punch violation, if there really is such a thing as a "classic" violation of this nature.

crazy voyager Mon Feb 25, 2008 05:10am

Quote:

After reading several responses from Forum members, and after talking to my board's interpreter, it seems that this violation should be called under the following circumstances:
I don't agree with this. This is a violation of the rules regarding dribbling the ball. Would you not call a player for a double dribble if he didn't get an advantage?
Striking the ball with the fist is imho always a violation, you can't apply advantage/disadvantage in a few situations, double dribble, Out of bounds and this one qualifies for me (and a few more).
And I acctually think that the sign should be the same as the one for a double-dribble. Since the sign is for "illegal dribble or double dribble" and striking the ball with the fist is an illegal way of dribbling, the sign should be the same. That's just my opinion though

Jurassic Referee Mon Feb 25, 2008 07:59am

Crazy, re: your statement that fisting is always a violation and you can't call advantage/disadvantage in just a few situations.....

Wanna bet?:D

There exists in the nether world of officiating what is known as the "expected call".

It has been stated that:
1) Advantage/disadvantage applies to all contact when it comes to calling fouls.
2) Advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations.

Unfortunately, in real life, it isn't that easy.

For fouls, if the contact is excessive, flagrant, unsporting or gives a team an unfair advantage, the foul must be called. Fuggedabout advantage/disadvantage.

For violations, <b>most</b> violations are called without regard to advantage/disadvantage. Double dribble, out of bounds, backcourt, deliberate kick, etc., etc. are some examples of that, as you stated. However, over the years, it has become customary amongst the vast percentage(96.87%) of officials to call a <b>few</b> violations by advantage/disadvantage. Note the <b>"few"</b>! These have become the "expected call". These violations include three seconds, 10 seconds for a FT shooter to shoot, and maybe a fist that is nowhere near another player. Right or wrong, it usually is the way that these certain (few) types of violations are uniformly called. And believe it or not, it seems that the rulesmakers are actually aware of what is happening in real life. A good example of this might have been a few years ago when a player throwing an elbow without contact was supposed to be automatically given a technical foul. Well, the vast majority of officials from sea to shining sea thought the penalty was way too strict and refused to call it. They either ignored it or simply warned the offending player. The rulesmakers finally reacted to what was happening in real life and changed the penalty to a violation. A player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is another good example of this. That used to be a technical foul also. Most officials refused to call it strictly because they felt the penalty was too severe for what they though was a fairly minor rules violation. It now is a violation and it is being called. Of course, there have also been examples of calls that maybe were heading towards the "expected" category and the rulesmakers didn't want that particular play to go that way. An example was a thrower stepping in bounds in the backcourt after a made basket with no pressure and no defenders in the area. Some officials were starting to ignore that call also, applying advantage/disadvantage. Well, the rulesmakers stepped in on this one and said screw the "expected" call and call the violation. They added a case play to emphasize how they wanted it called.

Soooooo, to sum up:
- You call <b>most</b> violations <b>all</b> of the time.
-You call a <b>few</b> violations <b>some</b> of the time.

Deal with it. It is what it is. Shrug.

Jmho......

canuckref Mon Feb 25, 2008 01:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Crazy, re: your statement that fisting is always a violation and you can't call advantage/disadvantage in just a few situations.....

Wanna bet?:D

There exists in the nether world of officiating what is known as the "expected call".

It has been stated that:
1) Advantage/disadvantage applies to all contact when it comes to calling fouls.
2) Advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations.

Unfortunately, in real life, it isn't that easy.

For fouls, if the contact is excessive, flagrant, unsporting or gives a team an unfair advantage, the foul must be called. Fuggedabout advantage/disadvantage.

For violations, <b>most</b> violations are called without regard to advantage/disadvantage. Double dribble, out of bounds, backcourt, deliberate kick, etc., etc. are some examples of that, as you stated. However, over the years, it has become customary amongst the vast percentage(96.87%) of officials to call a <b>few</b> violations by advantage/disadvantage. Note the <b>"few"</b>! These have become the "expected call". These violations include three seconds, 10 seconds for a FT shooter to shoot, and maybe a fist that is nowhere near another player. Right or wrong, it usually is the way that these certain (few) types of violations are uniformly called. And believe it or not, it seems that the rulesmakers are actually aware of what is happening in real life. A good example of this might have been a few years ago when a player throwing an elbow without contact was supposed to be automatically given a technical foul. Well, the vast majority of officials from sea to shining sea thought the penalty was way too strict and refused to call it. They either ignored it or simply warned the offending player. The rulesmakers finally reacted to what was happening in real life and changed the penalty to a violation. A player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is another good example of this. That used to be a technical foul also. Most officials refused to call it strictly because they felt the penalty was too severe for what they though was a fairly minor rules violation. It now is a violation and it is being called. Of course, there have also been examples of calls that maybe were heading towards the "expected" category and the rulesmakers didn't want that particular play to go that way. An example was a thrower stepping in bounds in the backcourt after a made basket with no pressure and no defenders in the area. Some officials were starting to ignore that call also, applying advantage/disadvantage. Well, the rulesmakers stepped in on this one and said screw the "expected" call and call the violation. They added a case play to emphasize how they wanted it called.

Soooooo, to sum up:
- You call <b>most</b> violations <b>all</b> of the time.
-You call a <b>few</b> violations <b>some</b> of the time.

Deal with it. It is what it is. Shrug.

Jmho......

Just for clarity: crazy voyageur works FIBA I believe. In FIBA striking the ball with your fist is always a violation (FIBA 13.2.1) I have not seen anyone use advantage/disadvantage with this rule. Under FIBA a player leaving the court to avoid a defender is immediately (when they go out of bounds) given a warning then if repeated a technical foul is charged (FIBA casebook 38-5 and 38-7).

crazy voyager Mon Feb 25, 2008 02:51pm

I am not aware of the NFHS/NCAA/FED rules for striking the ball with the fist but in FIBA 13.2.1 it is quite clear that it is not allowed and is a violation.
And yes, advantage/disadvantage is good and should be apllied to a lot of stuff (like fouls, we can't call every single contact). But this is not one of those, just as you can't ignore a player standing outside the court holding the ball (unless it is a throw-in offcourse) you can't ignore this. I still belive that striking the ball with the fist is just like the double dribble, there is no advantage/disadvantage, just a violation to be called.

Raymond Mon Feb 25, 2008 03:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazy voyager
I am not aware of the NFHS/NCAA/FED rules for striking the ball with the fist but in FIBA 13.2.1 it is quite clear that it is not allowed and is a violation.
...

NCAA Rule 9 Section 6. Travel, Kick, Fist, Through Basket from Below
A player shall not travel or run with the ball, intentionally kick it, strike it
with the fist or cause it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder
from below.

Jurassic Referee Mon Feb 25, 2008 04:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
NCAA Rule 9 Section 6. Travel, Kick, Fist, Through Basket from Below
A player shall not travel or run with the ball, intentionally kick it, strike it
with the fist or cause it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder
from below.

The similar FED rule is rule 9-4. Supposed to be a violation always too.

BillyMac Mon Feb 25, 2008 08:39pm

How Often Have You Not Seen This ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckref
In FIBA striking the ball with your fist is always a violation (FIBA 13.2.1) I have not seen anyone use advantage/disadvantage with this rule.

Have many times have you seen advantage/disadvantage not used with this play? This is my twenty-seventh year of officiating, working from 60, to 100, games a year, I also coached over 500 middle school games, I played about 80 games in high school, watched my daughter play recreation, middle school, high school, and AAU ball, and watched my son play recreation ball, and I've only seen this play once, yes, just once, a few weks ago.

canuckref Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac
Have many times have you seen advantage/disadvantage not used with this play? This is my twenty-seventh year of officiating, working from 60, to 100, games a year, I also coached over 500 middle school games, I played about 80 games in high school, watched my daughter play recreation, middle school, high school, and AAU ball, and watched my son play recreation ball, and I've only seen this play once, yes, just once, a few weks ago.

Bizarrely I had to make this call twice this following weekend at a tournament for V girls. In the first play A1 and B1 are both trying to get a loose ball near the end line when A1 punches the ball with a closed fist directly up in the air (a bad volleyball play?) tweet.

Second time different game. A1 attempts to pass the ball to A2 in the restricted area (key) B1 reaches out with a fist and punches ball away, tweet.

In both cases I do not at all understand the logic of this play except to say they are clueless about the game. In the first situation A1 had a height advantage and could have easily tipped the ball upwards to get it out of reach of B1. In the second situation B1 could have tipped the ball with an open hand, or tried to intercept the pass. So it looks like I have 54 years worth of experience with this play from one weekends work:eek:

Adam Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckref
Bizarrely I had to make this call twice this following weekend at a tournament for V girls.

:confused: ??

golfdesigner Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:16pm

:D Everybody knows, a basketball official can see what's going to happen.

canuckref Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
:confused: ??

????
what don't you understand: FOLLOWING a violation I HAD TO make a call. Sorry I am speaking in FIBA, so it all makes sense to me and 5.7 billion non ncaa/nfhs players/people.

If you need any more clarifications, post the question in french and I'll get back to you the following week;)

grunewar Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:23pm

Other than the generic violation signal? I see where CA originally also used the "kick" signal too. Is this what everyone else uses? Is there another preferred signal? Or, just go with "violation." Just curious as I've never called it.

SmokeEater Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckref
Just for clarity: crazy voyageur works FIBA I believe. In FIBA striking the ball with your fist is always a violation (FIBA 13.2.1) I have not seen anyone use advantage/disadvantage with this rule. Under FIBA a player leaving the court to avoid a defender is immediately (when they go out of bounds) given a warning then if repeated a technical foul is charged (FIBA casebook 38-5 and 38-7).

In regards to your warning a player who goes out of bounds. Where do you get your interpretation from. We have been discussing this at length recently and the case plays you speak of refer to failing to follow an officials directions. As far as the warning is it not given when the player gains an advantage, such as avoiding a defender or does it deceptively? There is still some grey areas that fall under the judgement of the official on this call, IMO.

canuckref Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeEater
In regards to your warning a player who goes out of bounds. Where do you get your interpretation from. We have been discussing this at length recently and the case plays you speak of refer to failing to follow an officials directions. As far as the warning is it not given when the player gains an advantage, such as avoiding a defender or does it deceptively? There is still some grey areas that fall under the judgement of the official on this call, IMO.

from 2006 FIBA casebook
38-5
In order to avoid a defensive player, A4 runs out of bounds and around the player before returning to the in-bounds area. The official warns A4 and coach A not to repeat the action. A4 again goes out of bounds to avoid a defensive player. Shall a technical foul be charged to A4?
(Answer) Yes. To permit a player to go out of bounds in this way would be to give that player an unfair advantage and because a warning has been given a technical foul shall be charged. (see also 38-7 a players momentum from jumping to gain control or pass the ball carries them out of bounds = no infraction)

SmokeEater Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckref
from 2006 FIBA casebook
38-5
In order to avoid a defensive player, A4 runs out of bounds and around the player before returning to the in-bounds area. The official warns A4 and coach A not to repeat the action. A4 again goes out of bounds to avoid a defensive player. Shall a technical foul be charged to A4?
(Answer) Yes. To permit a player to go out of bounds in this way would be to give that player an unfair advantage and because a warning has been given a technical foul shall be charged. (see also 38-7 a players momentum from jumping to gain control or pass the ball carries them out of bounds = no infraction)

Ok so now you can repeat the case book but I am looking to interpret the meaning. It has been discussed at great length as I said earlier and there is no "rule" or mention other than the case book situation where a player is not allowed to go OB and then return to the court. The exception as you have indicated by the case play is when they gain an advantage to avoid a defender. (This we agree on in totality). What I wonder is what about the kid who looses his positional awareness making a cut along the baseline then enters again on the other side of the key and receives a pass. No advantage really, no deception, no defender avoidance. I say play on, making this judgement. It is also the interpretation I received from my Provincial Interpreter.

Jurassic Referee Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by grunewar
Other than the generic violation signal? I see where CA originally also used the "kick" signal too. Is this what everyone else uses? Is there another preferred signal? Or, just go with "violation." Just curious as I've never called it.

Of a player fists the ball. Just make a fist and verbalize the violation. Or simply verbalize it. That'll let everybody know what you called. The "kick" signal is for a kick. Using the "kick"signal is not only inappropriate, it's stoopid imo.

Raymond Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Of a player fists the ball. Just make a fist and verbalize the violation. Or simply verbalize it. That'll let everybody know what you called. The "kick" signal is for a kick. Using the "kick"signal is not only inappropriate, it's stoopid imo.

There is no "fisting" mechanic? :eek:

Adam Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
There is no "fisting" mechanic? :eek:

Is this the appropriate time for a Hackensack joke?

Raymond Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Is this the appropriate time for a Hackensack joke?

Or Jenna Jameson?

Jurassic Referee Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:47pm

Oh, you guys....:rolleyes:

Raymond Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Oh, you guys....:rolleyes:

Hey, I've resisted going down that road for 2 days now. That's pretty good for me. :D

canuckref Tue Feb 26, 2008 02:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeEater
Ok so now you can repeat the case book but I am looking to interpret the meaning. It has been discussed at great length as I said earlier and there is no "rule" or mention other than the case book situation where a player is not allowed to go OB and then return to the court. The exception as you have indicated by the case play is when they gain an advantage to avoid a defender. (This we agree on in totality). What I wonder is what about the kid who looses his positional awareness making a cut along the baseline then enters again on the other side of the key and receives a pass. No advantage really, no deception, no defender avoidance. I say play on, making this judgement. It is also the interpretation I received from my Provincial Interpreter.

The reason I quote the case-play is for clarity. in an earlier post you seem to indicate there was no ruling, except for ignoring an officials warning. This case is clearly about running out of bounds to avoid a defender, not ignoring an official. The intent is to gain an advantage by running out of bounds, not to be disrespectful to an official...just wanted to make sure we were speaking about the same case.

In regards to the play you describe about the player "losing his positional awareness". I would blow this dead immediately if its an offensive player, then issue the warning. I do not want that player to receive a pass after he returns from out of bounds (running outside the baseline) then shoots, passes, dribbles and/or scores. I think its fair to say that anytime you run out of bounds in your frontcourt it could be interpreted to be avoiding the defense. I would like to hear the rationale/interpretation for permitting a player to run out of bounds during play. If you don't agree that the player should be warned to stay on the court, think what this leads to. The player realizes he has run out of bounds (even if he is just "lost") receives a pass and there is no whistle. What does he do next trip? i think you need to warn the player to avoid any confusion about the confines of the playing area. I am not aware of an interpretation here in Ontario about this situation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1