High Dribble

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

So if A2 gently kicks the ball back to A1 that would be fine with you as well?

Sorry Camron, but by failing to enforce the rules because you don't deem that it is necessary in a given situation, you run the risk of having the game degenerate into a farce. That is exactly what happened in the other thread started by Y2Koach about the official refusing to call a palming violation.

The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So if A2 gently kicks the ball back to A1 that would be fine with you as well?

Sorry Camron, but by failing to enforce the rules because you don't deem that it is necessary in a given situation, you run the risk of having the game degenerate into a farce. That is exactly what happened in the other thread started by Y2Koach about the official refusing to call a palming violation.

The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing

Don't be silly. A kick is not a safety rule.

Now tell me...

1. How many multiple fouls have you called?
2. How many times have you called both fouls when a shooter is hit across the arms then crashes into a defender?
3. Do you call 3 seconds for a player with 1 foot inside the lane at the FT line for 3.1 seconds?

Those are rules too and there are case plays from the NFHS detailing the calls. Unless you can tell me that you do so every time, you have absolutely no credibility in your arguments. You're doing the very thing you're saying I can't do.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So if A2 gently kicks the ball back to A1 that would be fine with you as well?

Sorry Camron, but by failing to enforce the rules because you don't deem that it is necessary in a given situation, you run the risk of having the game degenerate into a farce. That is exactly what happened in the other thread started by Y2Koach about the official refusing to call a palming violation.

The Beauty of Summer Sight-Seeing

Respectfully wondering how you would handle a sitch with a handicapped player( which I've seen on the high school level) who had a deformed hand permanently in a fist. By your definition it would also be a violation?

[Nevadaref]

For those who argue not to make such a call, I would direct you to the very similar situation in which the thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure.

The bottom line is that as an official it is your job to make the teams play within the constructs of the rules. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

So did the NFHS:

9.2.5 Situation: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.
Ruling: A violation in both (a) and (b).
Comment: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

I agree with Nevaderef on this situation. Boundary line calls are pretty much black and white.

However, how about the following violations, Nevadaref? Would you call them every time they occur, keeping in mind the Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, advantage/disadvantage, the Tower philosophy, the level of play, the time remaining in the game, and the score (middle school, blowout, 20 seconds left)? Or would you "make the teams play within the constructs of the rules"?

1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

Unlike the black and white, as defined by a NFHS case book play, boundary line rules, I believe that these rules present gray areas, also known as Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, advantage/disadvantage, and the the Tower philosophy, to the officials assigned in that game.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

1. My take is that ten is long enough. If I have a good count going, which I confess that I may not have every single time on this play, I think I would make the call if I ever reached ten, which has never happened in 22 years. If you're gonna give him eleven, why not 12? Why not 13? I say 10 is plenty.

2. One of the first things I learned many years ago is that if you keep a close watch on three seconds, you won't see much of anything else. I rarely have a count on a lane violation, but merely observe that a player has been there
"too long." I think it is natural to give more slack to a player standing passively at the free throw line than to the player who is actively working for position deep in the paint to box out or post up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

1. My take is that ten is long enough. If I have a good count going, which I confess that I may not have every single time on this play, I think I would make the call if I ever reached ten, which has never happened in 22 years. If you're gonna give him eleven, why not 12? Why not 13? I say 10 is plenty. 2. One of the first things I learned many years ago is that if you keep a close watch on three seconds, you won't see much of anything else. I rarely have a count on a lane violation, but merely observe that a player has been there "too long." I think it is natural to give more slack to a player standing passively at the free throw line than to the player who is actively working for position deep in the paint to box out or post up.

Thanks for your straightforward, honest, practical answers to my questions. Please note that I never said in my post what the calls should be, all I said is that there may be "gray areas" open to interpretation, which may mean different interpretations made by different officials, also depending on the level of the game, score, and time remaining.

One picky point. I've been officiating for 27 years and have observed free throw shooters going past the ten count, even a slow ten count, many, maybe many, many times. Unless you're a rookie official, which by your intelligent, and educational, posts, I believe that you are not, I can't believe that you've never had a player go over a slow ten count.

[Adam]

Billy, maybe it's a regional thing, but I've never seen it in the two regions I've worked.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

However, how about the following violations, Nevadaref?
...
1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

Originally Posted by just another ref

1. My take is...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nevaderef: Thanks for your straightforward, honest, practical answers to my questions.

Please don't confuse me with JAR.

My answer to your questions is that situations that do not involve a timing device, a line painted on the court, or a clear, observable act by a player will be handled with some leniency simply because individuals count at different speeds or focus upon different aspects of play. So for your specific examples:
1. I tend to count to ten fairly slowly on a FT attempt.
2. I probably do not notice a player who is lost in the FT lane for a couple of seconds because I am focused on the players who are not running around with their heads cut off and are making an important play. The munchkin at the side of the lane with one foot in it is likely out of my field of vision, but even if I do observe this player, my count is likely less precise.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For those who argue not to make such a call, I would direct you to the very similar situation in which the thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure.

The bottom line is that as an official it is your job to make the teams play within the constructs of the rules. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

You seem to be softening by the grey phrase 'within the constructs of the rules', at least I read it that way.

End line inbounds violation after a basket with no pressure can be an advantage to team A as they are trying to run in quick transition.


So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Or maybe a windmill?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Or maybe a windmill?

Where? Let me at it!

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.