What do you have???

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the problem with you working other levels of basketball. You admit that you have only learned a pro philosophy so that is the only way in which you can view plays. Unfortunately, that means that you are getting a number of calls wrong when working at the NCAA or NFHS levels, if you continue to do so. I would ask you to please cease working those levels of play and just focus on the pro games if that is your goal. Those of us who work those games don't need you making incorrect decisions based upon rules and principles from another level of play. It only makes our lives harder and counters all that we do towards educating the fans, coaches, and players at those levels.

I put three specific comments of yours in RED above which are incorrect in either an NCAA or NFHS game.

1. You now know that and openly admit that you judge block/charge by the start of upward movement of the offensive player while the NCAA and NFHS standard is when both feet of the offensive player have left the floor. You say that you would have a block by the favor-the-offense pro-philosophy, but then you actually admit that since you now know the correct criterion for NCAA and NFHS this play could only be considered a charge. So what would you actually call during an NCAA game? If your answer is block for the reason previously stated, then you have no business on a college floor. Unfortunately, the pro game has destroyed the balance between the offense and defense and that makes it far less appealing to watch. Clearly the NBA brass believes that offense sells tickets, but there are many fans that appreciate defense and the pro game consistently over-penalizes and screws the defense.

2. An offensive player tries to jump over and around a defender by flinging his body at an awkward angle and you are going to give him a call because he "goes down really hard and is hurt". Are you serious??? That's an incredibly immature comment. All that it shows is that the official isn't courageous enough to stand the heat of making the proper decision and would rather take the easy way out. Please show me in the rules where injury is the standard by which to judge a foul.

3. For the GT decision whether the ball has struck the board or not means absolutely nothing at the NFHS level and didn't matter for NCAA either until last year. That was a recent change in the college game. Thanks for letting us know your pro view of this play, but please make it clear for other officials reading this forum that you are employing those criteria and not the NFHS rules.

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender? I just need something to go off of b/c whereas i didn't know about the college rules you don't know about the pro game. Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest. If i was given a legitimate reason why a league or a conference wants something a certain way, ok I'm fine with that but just to tell me to do it a certain way with no explanation, especially when my gut tells me its wrong, I have a problem with that. You're right I am still calling this a block. I am not going to reference the, "you shouldn't be on a college floor then" remark. I've worked my butt off to be there. I attempt to do what my CC says for the night and go on about my business. If he tells me I missed a play and gives me the reason why, I attempt to correct it if I have the play again.

2. I never said if a player slung himself into an opponent I would give him a foul if he went down and was hurt. I stated that there was sufficient enough contact to warrant a whistle and also the fact that he goes down hurt even more makes me have a foul on the play. Onus is on the defender to be legal! if he is not legal the only way i can absolve him from having a foul is if the offensive player does something overt such as lead with a knee or foot, in this case he doesn't do either. Yes the play in question has minimal contact, or at least so it seems, but it is enough that it takes the offensive players hips and legs out from underneath him causing him to not be able to return the floor in a normal position. We cannot choose to ignore illegal contact. Players have to decide outcomes of games through LEGAL actions, not illegal ones which we choose to ignore. if 2 players are on the floor on a drive to the basket 9/10 times someone has committed an illegal act and on that 1/10 times then you have 2 floppers on your hands and you better watch both of them the rest of the night.

3. Ok to make it clear for everyone on the forum I no longer referee NFHS. So my claim on this play is germaine to both leagues.

Also, just to note: If an offensive player was expecting contact and got none, while in the air, and he still wants to fall to the floor to simulate that something happened or he got fouled, he way more often than not is landing with a foot first to soften the blow and in this case he does not as he has no control once he got hip checked.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

.... if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block.

Gee, from the NBA games that I've seen, I coulda sworn that they went with the stars. If Kobe or LeBron was the shooter, it's a block. If Kobe or LeBron was the defender though, then it's a charge. The officials are really consistent that way.

I'll start to care about how the pros call a game when the pros actually start following their own rule book. Methinks that the same people training the Harlem Globetrotter officials are also training the NBA officials. Watching the LeBrons and Kobes of the world take 5-step layups over and over and over is absolutely ridiculous.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul..... We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest.

Actually Ben the rest of your quote does in fact support the premise that the NBA has a "favor-the-offense" philosophy. But I already surmised that based upon a debate I had with one of your colleagues.

And based on my camp experiences, especially this summer, it seems the college philosophy is opposite--the observers I worked in front of seemed to want those 50/50 block/charge plays to go against the offense.

[mu4scott]

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points.

I’ll start w/ frame 2 and use frame 1 as just a starting off point.

Frame 2:

I think it’s pretty clear the offensive player is gathering himself to go up for the shot and is moving towards the basket. In my estimation he is taking one final step (left foot) and then going up. Note the defensive position of the player in green. His right shoulder from this angle is in line w/ the edge of the bleachers.

Frame 3:

The offensive player has started his ascension towards the basket. I believe he has planted off his left foot and his right foot is off the ground due to his knee being bent and it’s above his left leg. The defensive player has clearly changed his floor position and has moved towards the baseline.

Frame 4:

The offensive player looks to have both feet off the ground or very close to doing so. The ball is clearly above his head and he appears to be moving towards the basket. The defensive position of green has moved again in this frame. He has continued to move into the path of the shooter.

Frame 5:

This is the last frame before the offensive player releases the ball. If a person was not sure in frame 4 if the player had both feet off the ground then it’s very clear that is the case now. The defender continues to move his position on the floor. His body has moved further into the path of the now airborne shooter. I believe this is where the first contact occurs.

Frame 6:

Offensive player has released the ball and his body has distinctively different positioning. His feet are now starting to become parallel with the rest of his body. It appears this has happened because his waist has come in contact with the players left shoulder and head.



Blocking foul on green and two shots for white.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points...

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

Exactly right. So what happens if we have another play later in the game that's so close it has to broken down frame-by-frame? It could go either way. So. . . It better be the same call as whatever is made on this play, regardless of which end of the court it happens on.

[mu4scott]

I guess my main point is that a whistle has to be blown on this. I don't think you can pass on it.

[Adam]

And I think, from what I saw on the video (not frame by frame), a no-call is acceptable.

[Adam]

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

I'll agree you can't necessarily tell exactly when there was contact and you can't also tell anything about forward defensive movement, but you can determine when the shooter was airborne and lateral defensive movement after that time and that the movement is inconsistent with prior contact. And that is all we need to know. Lateral defensive movement is the one thing you can still see perfectly even when straightlined.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

OK...let's assume contact started between 4 and 5.

The shooter's waist was even with the defender's waist in frame 3 (shoulder to shoulder too). In frame 4, the shooter waist is even with the defender's shoulder. While you can't see the shooter's feet, there is no other explanation than for the shooter to already be in the air before frame 4....just too much elevation to be anything else. Now, if the shooter had contacted the defender prior to frame 5, it would have caused the defender to be knocked towards the basket but he wasn't...so there was no contact before frame 5.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'll agree you can't necessarily tell exactly when there was contact and you can't also tell anything about forward defensive movement, but you can determine when the shooter was airborne and lateral defensive movement after that time and that the movement is inconsistent with prior contact. And that is all we need to know. Lateral defensive movement is the one thing you can still see perfectly even when straightlined.

On the court, yes; on grainy video, not necessarily.

Let me say this. If the defender was leaning to the side when contact was made; easy block. From the video, it's possible. I don't trust the camera, on this, though. To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.

Originally Posted by Camron

OK...let's assume contact started between 4 and 5.

The shooter's waist was even with the defender's waist in frame 3 (shoulder to shoulder too). In frame 4, the shooter waist is even with the defender's shoulder. While you can't see the shooter's feet, there is no other explanation than for the shooter to already be in the air before frame 4....just too much elevation to be anything else. Now, if the shooter had contacted the defender prior to frame 5, it would have caused the defender to be knocked towards the basket but he wasn't...so there was no contact before frame 5.

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.

I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.

Given the relative distances involved, the camera would have moved several feet between frames in order to give a impression of movement of a small amount....the camera man would need to be at a full sprint in the bleachers running towards the backcourt while holding a camera over his shoulder to move that much in 1/30 of a second. Additionally, other elements between the frames can be used to establish how stationary the camera was.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.
.

Agree. I've always agreed there was a flop.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.

The other call being a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because the defender flopped out of what would have been a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because it was so close and hard to tell...that i can't agree on. And that is my main issue..some of the "no-calls" seem to be based on the closeness of the play....and that is not acceptable. I would simply have no issue with either call as long as a call was made on this one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender?

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. believes that high-flying dunks sell tickets.

Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.
Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

Sorry but not even tim or yao could keep an NBA! player from dunking if he is just STANDING in front of the rim. These guys are pure athletes. The best in basketball! Now it is still legal if tim or yao jumps vertically while being in the RA. The jumping cleanses them from the play being reffed as an RA block/charge.

I was not talking about "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy in terms of rules that have been put in place. someone was mentioning it in regards to fouls and how we always attempt to favor the offense on those plays.

Your accusations are correct. We want a lot of slashing, cutting/driving to the basket, and freedom of movement in our game which is more condusive to higher scoring games. The NBA made rules to aid in this.

you're right, a defender is not allowed to be in the RA, nor is a defender allowed to be in the paint without actively guarding somebody for more than 3seconds, its just like stepping out of bounds, you are not allowed to do it.