What call would you make?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

My thoughts also...if it's a 3-pointer and had already gone in, that's a long time that has passed to now be running into a player and knocking them down. I'm thinking that's gotta be called.

I agree with Camron.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree with Camron.

You've been talking to Member Dan again, haven't you!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You've been talking to Member Dan again, haven't you!

He asked me to help him return to "esteemed" status. I told him to talk to you. Then he told me to STFU.

Go figure.

[Dan_ref]

There's an inside joke in this thread somewhere. I just know it!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Regarding #2...If B1 runs over A1 after a 3-point shot is actually made, that is a really late contact. If B1 is still coming at A1 that aggressivly after the shot is that far gone, you might consider an intentional. I'd certainly call a minimum of a common foul if only because the contact as described sound like rough play.

After I thought about it some more, I realized that the made shot implies that the ball is dead (no way the shooter is going to float in the air as long as the ball). This leads to the fact that, technically, only a intentional foul (or flagrant) could be called...which, being a dead ball, makes it a T. That said, I could understand someone fudging the relative timing a bit to call a common foul or live ball intentional instead of a T....but could also understand the T.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That said, I could understand someone fudging the relative timing a bit to call a common foul or live ball intentional instead of a T....but could also understand the T.

Doing so would be very poor in my opinion. Have the courage to make the correct call and enforce the proper penalty for the negative act that the player committed.

Anything else is really unacceptable.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Doing so would be very poor in my opinion. Have the courage to make the correct call and enforce the proper penalty for the negative act that the player committed.

Anything else is really unacceptable.

This may or may not be one of those times but every once in a while, the right call is not the correct call. Sometimes, just sometimes, the call needs ot fit the act.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This may or may not be one of those times but every once in a while, the right call is not the correct call.

Many officials have expressed similar thoughts, so I'm not trying to target you specifically here, but that kind of double-speak is not only unhelpful, but also counterproductive as it only serves as a way to rationalize not making the tough call.
The truth is that the right call and the correct call are always one and the same. They are in fact precisely what the NFHS rules book prescribes.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sometimes, just sometimes, the call needs ot fit the act.

Yep, and that couldn't be more true in this case. In an instance such as this in which a player recklessly runs into an opposing shooter so long after the release of the ball that it has actually passed completely through the basket, the harsh penalty of a technical foul for the unneccessary and late, deadball contact is fully appropriate.

Officials who don't properly to penalize such contact are failing to put an end to the rough play that currently plagues the game. The stern penalties are designed to get the players to change their overly physical tactics and instead contest the game with grace and skill.

I would encourage all officials to be strong and do as the NFHS continues to urge in a POE concerning rough play that is published year after year--CLEAN UP THE GAME!

[JRutledge]

If you have to watch video tape to determine if the ball was dead or not by milliseconds so that you can call an technical foul (over a common or shooting foul), then you have more problems than trying to get a call right.

This is not about rough play or any POE. This is about not looking for crap because you will find it. This is why you keep hearing “call the obvious.”

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Actually, it is about not shirking your responsibility and leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

[JRutledge]

And what mess would that be? A debate over if you actually made the right call or not by splitting hairs? Most of us are not working games with High-Definition video or even good camera angles on the tape of our games. The only messes I see is going to need cleaning up are answers to why you ejected a coach for calling something you cannot prove.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...

As usual this poster comes along and adds extra criteria to the situation and twists the elements of the play under discussion to suit his views.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

[img]
As usual this poster comes along and adds extra criteria to the situation and twists the elements of the play under discussion to suit his views.

What extra is he adding? All Jeff is saying is if it's close don't make the unexpected call. Camron is saying even if it's not close don't make the unexpected call. Two different plays that are both within the scope of the original discussion.

FWIW, I doubt I'm going to make an unexpected call here either. Maybe I can envision some 3rd world scenario where a dead ball contact T is needed instead of a common foul. But as I said, it's probably gonna be a play that occurs outside of the normal physics of basketball and it has got to be really obvious so I really don't think it's worth debating. Unless of course you normally work games that do not obey the usual laws of basketball physics.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What extra is he adding? All Jeff is saying is if it's close don't make the unexpected call. Camron is saying even if it's not close don't make the unexpected call. Two different plays that are both within the scope of the original discussion.

Dan,

It is simply the fact that I made a point. He cannot handle anything I say no matter what it is about or how the point of view is framed.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What extra is he adding? All Jeff is saying is if it's close don't make the unexpected call. Camron is saying even if it's not close don't make the unexpected call. Two different plays that are both within the scope of the original discussion.

FWIW, I doubt I'm going to make an unexpected call here either. Maybe I can envision some 3rd world scenario where a dead ball contact T is needed instead of a common foul. But as I said, it's probably gonna be a play that occurs outside of the normal physics of basketball and it has got to be really obvious so I really don't think it's worth debating. Unless of course you normally work games that do not obey the usual laws of basketball physics.

It's boils down to understanding the difference between the rules and the game. The rules are a framework in which the game is to be played, comprehending most situations but not all. When something happens outside the intended framework of the rules, the enforcement may also be outside the typical framework of the rules.