Whacked in the stack

[Back In The Saddle]

AAU BV game this week, 2 man crew. Throw-in near the division line in front court. Throwing team sets up in a stack, four deep. During the throw-in a defender tries to go around the top of stack (the end away from the sideline) and, according to the coach, gets and elbow to the face while going around a screen. The kid goes down.

My question is, how do you referee a stack like this. One official can't realistically watch 4 matchups at once. Then again, neither can two each watch 4 matchups. Somehow you'd have to divide and conquer. But in this experience, the contact occurred on the far side of the stack from my partner, and while I was behind the kid that got hit and was completely straightlined. Not to mention my attention was already on some shenanigans going on in the stack.

I feel bad that the kid got hit. But neither of us saw it happen, nor do I think we could reasonably have been expected to (although that sounds like a cop out). But if there's a better way to handle this situation, I'd like to know.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

2 man crew. Throw-in near the division line in front court. Throwing team sets up in a stack, four deep. During the throw-in a defender tries to go around the top of stack (the end away from the sideline) and, according to the coach, gets and elbow to the face while going around a screen. My question is, how do you referee a stack like this. But if there's a better way to handle this situation, I'd like to know.

Tough situation. I don't know of any mechanics that are specifically tailored for this situation, but here's my two cents worth of input:

The administering official should concentrate on the thrower (designated spot, boundary line, etc.), the defender on the thrower (boundary, delay of game, etc.), and, if possible, nobody said this was an easy job, which is why we get paid the "big bucks", the next closest two opponents (fouls, etc.). Yeah, I know that this could be anywhere from two, to four players, but, as I said, this is a tough situation.

The non administering official should be the lead, on the endline, but on the ball side of the court. He, or she, should be observing eight players, that is everyone but the thrower and the defender of the thrower, looking for fouls, etc.

Both officials should open up to get a wide angle look at the play, and yet still be close enough to see the things that they're supposed to be looking for.

Will these mechanics guarantee that the two officials will not miss the elbow, or the push, the illegal screen, etc? No. That's why we have three man mechanics.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Tough situation. I don't know of any mechanics that are specifically tailored for this situation, but here's my two cents worth of input:

The administering official should concentrate on the thrower (designated spot, boundary line, etc.), the defender on the thrower (boundary, delay of game, etc.), and, if possible, nobody said this was an easy job, which is why we get paid the "big bucks", the next closest two opponents (fouls, etc.). Yeah, I know that this could be anywhere from two, to four players, but, as I said, this is a tough situation.

The non administering official should be the lead, on the endline, but on the ball side of the court. He, or she, should be observing eight players, that is everyone but the thrower and the defender of the thrower, looking for fouls, etc.

Both officials should open up to get a wide angle look at the play, and yet still be close enough to see the things that they're supposed to be looking for.

Will these mechanics guarantee that the two officials will not miss the elbow, or the push, the illegal screen, etc? No. That's why we have three man mechanics.

Clearly, Billy and I disagree on the focus and positioning of the officials.
I believe that the biggest reasons that officials miss severe situations are positioning and area of focus. They are either standing where there are no players and nothing going on or looking at what isn't likely going to be a contact situation when there is a high probability of there being such in another match-up. Recognizing where to be and what to watch are acquired traits of skilled officials.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the biggest reasons that officials miss severe situations are positioning and area of focus. They are either standing where there are no players and nothing going on or looking at what isn't likely going to be a contact situation when there is a high probability of there being such in another match-up. Recognizing where to be and what to watch are acquired traits of skilled officials.

That is a very astute comment. I believe that you identify the root causes of why officials miss severe contact situations. However, the acquired skill of recognizing when severe contact occurred, and being able to make the split-second decision to process the result and make a sellable, educated guess, can compensate for not having a perfect look. Something to think about. That would be the only time I would ever advocate educated "guessing", to prevent non-basketball escalation that can ruin the game.

I wish it was simple to do, but most misses, whether you see them or not, are the inability to see the play, process the information, make the decision, and pull the trigger in a very short period of time. It is impossible to do that hundreds of times a game without locking up on occasion. I never see or hear much discussion about it though.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

That is a very astute comment. I believe that you identify the root causes of why officials miss severe contact situations. However, the acquired skill of recognizing when severe contact occurred, and being able to make the split-second decision to process the result and make a sellable, educated guess, can compensate for not having a perfect look. Something to think about. That would be the only time I would ever advocate educated "guessing", to prevent non-basketball escalation that can ruin the game.

I wish it was simple to do, but most misses, whether you see them or not, are the inability to see the play, process the information, make the decision, and pull the trigger in a very short period of time. It is impossible to do that hundreds of times a game without locking up on occasion. I never see or hear much discussion about it though.

Perhaps because most good officials aren't all that interested in learning to officiate by guessing?

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Perhaps because most good officials aren't all that interested in learning to officiate by guessing?

In all seriousness, that comment was in reference to people never discussing the fact that they lock up and don't call fouls that they see. Officials miss a lot of calls, even when they have a great look. It happens. People should just admit it.

Since you want to play word parsing 101, then good officials wouldn't miss severe contact to the head. They'd understand that no matter where they position themselves, they know what is occurring on the floor and what needs to be called. In that situation, they'd be able to see all the players from the lead position, see a head snap back, hear the contact, see a kid start holding his face, and have a really good idea of what to call when they blew the whistle. Pretty basic for a good, experienced veteran official. Tough for an academic.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

However, the acquired skill of recognizing when severe contact occurred, and being able to make the split-second decision to process the result and make a sellable, educated guess, can compensate for not having a perfect look. Something to think about. That would be the only time I would ever advocate educated "guessing", to prevent non-basketball escalation that can ruin the game.

I thought about it. It's a completely wrong.....and dumb premise.

If you have to guess, you shouldn't be making any call....no matter how good a "guesser" you think you might be. The object, believe it or not, is to get the call right. You can't ensure that by "guessing".

Unbelievable......

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I thought about it. It's a completely wrong.....and dumb premise.

If you have to guess, you shouldn't be making any call....no matter how good a "guesser" you think you might be. The object, believe it or not, is to get the call right. You can't ensure that by "guessing".

Unbelievable......

I'll restate my viewpoint. Good, veteran officials have enough feel for the game to not ever miss severe contact than should be called as a foul, regardless of positioning. Severe contact that should be called a foul is so obvious to everyone in the gym that only incompetent officials miss it.

[emtp]

Were all 10 player's involved in the stack including the thrower-in and his defender, and if so where was your partner located, if he had 1 match up, how competitive was it, if it wasn't maybe they should have been watching the back side of this play more and with the corner of his eye watching his. Also keep in mind that all of us have seen horrible crashes that were incidental, maybe the kid ran into an inadvertent elbow. I agree with BM that this is tough.

[Nevadaref]

1. The official administering the throw-in (the Trail) should drop into the backcourt and bounce the ball to the thrower. This depth will provide a better view of the stack formation from the side instead of from the front, which would block the view of many of the players. I would think that an official would have a good look at a player making a curl run around the end of the stack from this position. In my opinion the actions of the players in the stack are more important to keep an eye on than those of the thrower and the probably one defender guarding the inbound pass. Those two players likely aren't going to have physical contact.

2. The Lead official obviously does not belong on the endline in such a situation and should adjust his positioning based upon the location of the players. Probably coming up to the FT line extended or even the top of the key (and possibly a couple of steps out onto the court) would put this official in a decent position to observe the action and also project a greater officiating presence to the players. Having an official standing nearby usually cuts down on the nonsense as the players have a greater sense that they are being watched.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The official administering the throw-in (the Trail) should drop into the backcourt and bounce the ball to the thrower. This depth with provide a better view of the stack formation from the side instead of from the front, which would block the view of many of the players.

Good advice. However, my local board, and our poorly written IAABO mechanics, encourage us to hand the ball to the thrower when there is defensive pressure. To follow your excellent advice, and still follow our local mechanics, and our "confusing" IAABO mechanics, I would hand the ball to the thrower and back away as quickly as possible to open up and get some depth.

We haven't used NFHS mechanics in a few years. The last time that we used them we were taught to only hand the ball the the thrower on the back endline, and on the sidelines (never on the frontcourt endline), if, and only if, there was no defensive pressure. Have the NFHS mechanics changed in the past few years to allow a bounce pass to the thrower, let's say on the sideline, even if there is defensive pressure?

[Nevadaref]

For as long as I have been officiating the NFHS has recommended handing the ball to the thrower along an endline and bouncing the ball when the throw-in spot is along a sideline.

PS I just checked and this is still current per 2.2.2 A 5&6.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For as long as I have been officiating the NFHS has recommended handing the ball to the thrower along an endline and bouncing the ball when the throw-in spot is along a sideline. I just checked and this is still current per 2.2.2 A 5&6.

Thanks. As I said, our local board no longer uses NFHS mechanics. My 1998-99 handbook, when we were using 100% NFHS mechanics states "220. The official shall hand (not toss) the ball to the thrower." Since then we used a hybrid version of NFHS and IAABO mechanics, and have moved to all IAABO mechanics the past four years. The current IAABO mechanics encourage us, in some circumstances, to hand the ball to the thrower, on the sideline, when there is defensive pressure. I wish we would go back to NFHS mechanics. I don't know why we changed?

[voiceoflg]

OK, I read that wrong. I thought the topic was "whacked in the sack."

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks. As I said, our local board no longer uses NFHS mechanics. My 1998-99 handbook, when we were using 100% NFHS mechanics states "220. The official shall hand (not toss) the ball to the thrower." Since then we used a hybrid version of NFHS and IAABO mechanics, and have moved to all IAABO mechanics the past four years. The current IAABO mechanics encourage us, in some circumstances, to hand the ball to the thrower, on the sideline, when there is defensive pressure. I wish we would go back to NFHS mechanics. I don't know why we changed?

Fed changed this a few years ago to allow a bounce to the thrower on the sideline.