High Dribble

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Advantage is of no consequence when determining a most violations.

I fixed your statement....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I fixed your statement....

Thanks. I considered doing that, but I decided against it. Wouldn't be the first mistake I made.
And with the post I was addressing, it's a no-call but not because of the lack of advantage.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And with the post I was addressing, it's a no-call but not because of the lack of advantage.

Agree with that too.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I fixed your statement....

Agreed.

Maybe 3-seconds, 10 seconds to shoot a FT, and a punched ball with no one around historically may be determined using advantage/disadvantage.

Other than that......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agreed.

Maybe 3-seconds, 10 seconds to shoot a FT, and a punched ball with no one around historically may be determined using advantage/disadvantage.

Other than that......

I'd say this one isn't necessarily advantage, but severity. IOW, if it takes 11 seconds, I'll probably think I was counting too fast and let it go. If it's 16 or 17 seconds in, and the kid is looking at his coach waiting for the steal sign, I'll call it.

I suppose if they have tired players, few reserves, and a smart coach they might try to milk free throws for extra rest time.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

A punched ball with no one around historically may be determined using advantage/disadvantage.

Guilty. I actually called that this year. I've never seen the play before, and, of course, I've never seen the violation called before, and that says a lot, I've been playing, coaching, or officiating since the late sixties. After the player punched the ball, something from the dark recesses of my brain told me that it was illegal, and I blew my whistle. I immediately regretted it. I was probably the only person in the gymnasium who knew it was illegal. It was, by far, my worst call of the year. Luckily it was in a blowout game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Guilty. I actually called that this year. I've never seen the play before, and, of course, I've never seen the violation called before, and that says a lot, I've been playing, coaching, or officiating since the late sixties. After the player punched the ball, something from the dark recesses of my brain told me that it was illegal, and I blew my whistle. I immediately regretted it. I was probably the only person in the gymnasium who knew it was illegal. It was, by far, my worst call of the year. Luckily it was in a blowout game.

If that's true, then you need to fix your thinking. Call it just as you would any other violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If that's true, then you need to fix your thinking. Call it just as you would any other violation.

It was my worst call of the season. All my other calls, and noncalls, were perfectly correct (in my dreams).

Here's the whole, sad, story:

Punch Ball

[Mark Padgett]

I had this kid in a game the other day. I called him for dribbling too low.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If that's true, then you need to fix your thinking. Call it just as you would any other violation.

How quickly we forget the guiding principles on the first page of the rules...knowing the purpose of a rule so it can be intelligently applied...not allowing a team an advantage not intended by rule.

Can you tell me what the intent and purpose of this rule is? If not, you might want to consider some more thinking before you blow the whistle.

Those statements on the first page of the rule book tell me that the rules in the block are not actually black and white. It tells me and every other official that there is a reason for each rule and they should be applied accordingly...not blindly.

[Nevadaref]

Camron,
I'm at a loss as to what point you are trying to make, but I certainly can tell you the intent and purpose of the rule against striking the ball with a closed fist. It's player safety. Quite simply the NFHS does not want players making a fist and taking swings on the court. The intent of the player may well be to strike the ball, but if he misses or another player jumps in the way and he clocks him we very likely have an injury. So the NFHS deemed that it was unsafe to attempt to play the ball in this manner and banned it. Even if there is no one around the official has a duty to penalize this action when done so that the players learn that it is unacceptable and don't get in the habit of doing it. The danger must be stamped out of the game.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron,
I'm at a loss as to what point you are trying to make, but I certainly can tell you the intent and purpose of the rule against striking the ball with a closed fist. It's player safety. Quite simply the NFHS does not want players making a fist and taking swings on the court. The intent of the player may well be to strike the ball, but if he misses or another player jumps in the way and he clocks him we very likely have an injury. So the NFHS deemed that it was unsafe to attempt to play the ball in this manner and banned it. Even if there is no one around the official has a duty to penalize this action when done so that the players learn that it is unacceptable and don't get in the habit of doing it. The danger must be stamped out of the game.

Well said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron,
I'm at a loss as to what point you are trying to make, but I certainly can tell you the intent and purpose of the rule against striking the ball with a closed fist. It's player safety. Quite simply the NFHS does not want players making a fist and taking swings on the court. The intent of the player may well be to strike the ball, but if he misses or another player jumps in the way and he clocks him we very likely have an injury. So the NFHS deemed that it was unsafe to attempt to play the ball in this manner and banned it. Even if there is no one around the official has a duty to penalize this action when done so that the players learn that it is unacceptable and don't get in the habit of doing it. The danger must be stamped out of the game.

The point is exactly what you stated but with a different conclusion.

When there is absolutely, unequivocally no danger involved, it shouldn't be called...

...A1 (@ the BC baseline) throwing the ball in to A2 (at the BC FT line) and all other players in the FC. A2 gently bumps the ball back towards A1 with the knuckles (as in the knuckle/fist bump handshake) where A1 takes 3-4 steps inbounds to get the ball.

There is no way this should ever be called. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule and why the rule exists. There is zero danger to anyone and it is simply irrelevant. To blow the whistle is merely being overly officious.