Re: the answers
 

Not too bad, but a few errors - and remember, we are expected to never be wrong on a rule interpretation from the first time in our careers we step onto a court. Yes, all the questions are false as they were in a recent post on this board.

In 15, it is irrelevant if the ball went through the basket or not. If the foul was committed by A1 before he returned to the floor, there can be no score.

Re: number 8. Your terminology is incorrect. Teams cannot call timeout. They may only request it. Only officials can call timeout. Now, before you roll your eyes and think this is petty, please know that I make this correction in grammar all the time because we don't want players to think that as soon as a coach or a player yells timeout that one exists. All too often I have seen a coach yell timeout and players stop playing when a timeout cannot be granted.

Here's an incredible story. I had a spring league HS varsity game a few weeks ago where a defensive coach yelled timeout during play and two of his players started walking toward their bench. The ballhandler had an uncontested lane to the hoop and took it. This was in the last three minutes of a tied game. After the basket, I asked the coach if he still wanted the timeout. He said yes and I asked him if he was sure. He yelled at me that he said "yes" the first time and "what was my problem?" I said OK, gave him the timeout and then gave the team a T for excessive timeouts. When he complained, I reminded him he had been notified after he used his final legal one, and he said that was "bull****." WHACK number two (unfortunately, the first was an indirect so he got to stay). This was at a venue that has a house rule that all technicals are two shots, possession, plus an automatic two points for the other team!!!

His team wound up losing by eleven. Sometimes Judge Judy isn't the only one who dispenses justice. ;)

[Edited by Mark Padgett on May 14th, 2002 at 04:09 PM]

Re: Re: the answers
 

I must congratulate the coach, even if he did see the thread
where this was already posted with the answer he did do
a good job with his explanations. #15 is interesting
because he seems to be a little confused by the NCAA mens
rule on PC. It actually states that a PC occurs only when
the player has control of the ball, so his explanation
should have been F, the basket counts and A1 is charged
with a *common* foul. But the test did say assume NF rules.

NCAA women's & NF are the same with respect to PC, it
applies when the player has control or is an airborne
shooter, so the basket does not count in #15.

Mark

here's my two cents... I am not sure I'd want to work with this partner.

there are a couple of these that you could let go calling them "judgement" but when there was a clear mistake in the rule interpretation, I hope you corrected it.

the ball hitting the feet, the backcourt that hit A, then A picked it up could be "judgement" and I would definitely confront. I would kas her the same way you did... What did you see, but if she argued with me and I knew what the rule was, I'd tell her she was wrong. As far as the funky T's I hope you "overruled" and fixed them.

I don't miss the point at all. You've always maintain that rules knowledge is not as important as court presence. I know it and everyone who has paid attention to any of these types of discussions over the past 3 years knows it as well.

Bottom line, would you want to work with:

#1 - Mark's partner or

#2 - a slightly less polished official who had a better understanding of the rules?

It's an easy question. Just pick a number. #1 or #2. There's no need for a 6 paragraph DeNucci-like response! :)

Gotta disagree, buddy. It was obvious to me she saw the plays clearly but did not know the rule in either case. Besides, when I discussed these, she described what she saw and it matched what I saw, which meant she blew the rule.

And yes - I corrected the "funky" Ts. Boy, that went over big with her. :p

Neither.
 

I think the question is not fair. I do not think I would take this Mark's partner under any circumstance. I do not consider anything she did as good court presence. She cracked under pressure no matter what she might have acted like. I do not want a partner that is totally lacking of knowledge, I just want someone that is confident in what they call and can handle themselves under pressure.

Maybe that does not answer your question, but it is my answer and I am sticking to it. :)

Well that was 2 paragraphs. Well maybe three now. :p


Peace

Re: Neither.
 

Well, more like one paragraph and 3 sentences! ;)

Good discussions guys. :) I usually check this forum right after I get to work (usually get here 30 min. early to beat the DC traffic) and I am rarely disappointed with the forum. It is interesting to see the discussions develope (even though some of them are lengthy), but this is how we learn to be better officials.

Pennsylvania Coach: Nice job on the answers. You seem to be in the same "mold" as Hawks Coach. Both of you seem very much interested in the game and these discussions.

Pennsylvania Coach: Nice job on the answers. You seem to be in the same "mold" as Hawks Coach. Both of you seem very much interested in the game and these discussions.


Both coaches: When you're ready to give up the
coaching gig, come on over to our side! You'll
be glad you did.

Re: An explanation for Cornellref
 

With A just getting the ball and not yet being in position to inbound, most experienced refs will grant this TO. While you may be technically right, most refs will allow latitude on the TO up until A is OOB and facing the court. A with ball and stepping OOB, B's TO request is usually granted (and I think it should be).

Re: Re: An explanation for Cornellref
 

Coach,an official has to be very careful with this.You can hand the defense a heckuva advantage by granting them a TO that they technically shouldn't get.Not only does it allow them to set up a defense,it stops the clock to conserve some time for them at the end of a close game.Whether an official agrees with you or not,he/she shouldn't allow themselves to become a factor in the game when they shouldn't be.What we are effectively doing is penalising the offensive team if we grant a TO in this case.If you want to get the clock stopped and set-up,you're better off tapping the ball away after the basket and taking a delay-of-game warning(if you haven't had one).It serves the same purpose.Btw,if the ball isn't tapped very far after the basket,I'll hustle and get it to throw it to the in-bounder.I don't like giving anyone an advantage that they're not entitled to.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 15th, 2002 at 12:09 PM]

B can get the TO if called before at A's disposal. On an administered throw-in, the concept is quite clear. When A gets ball from ref, ball is at disposal, count starts, B can't get a TO, etc.

I think that most refs look at the time where A is just getting the ball but cannot throw it in yet as a gray area, where they are inclined to grant a coach a timeout. Similarly, refs usually start the count when the player steps out with the ball and face the court, rather than when they first touch it. It is a matter of 1-2 seconds, but in my experience this is how refs handle throw-ins after a made basket. And if you haven't started your count (or normally would not have started your count), then you are treating B the same as you are treating A by granting the TO. Just my opinion, but backed up by many observations :)

I would also add that counts are not generally started until a player is ready to throw in unless the player seems to take excessive time. This observation is confined to the normal made basket, retrieve ball, step out, turn, and throw.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on May 15th, 2002 at 12:39 PM]

Re: Re: An explanation for Cornellref
 

I agree with you that most refs will grant a timeout in the circumstances that you described. I even had one grant a TO to the opponent when we were inbounding the ball after a made basket and the count was at 3! His explaination? They can call a timeout up to the time that the ball is released on a pass! Some days it doesn't pay to know the rules. This was a varisty girls game, by the way.

I don't agree with you that a TO should be able to be requested until the player is OOB and facing the court. If this is what NF wanted, that is what they would have written in the rule book.

After a made basket we try to get the ball inbounded within 1 second from the time it goes through the net. Sometimes the player is never really facing the court (more like facing the sidelines) when the passing motion begins. The opponent is given quite an advantage if they are able to stop our fastbreak as our player is jumping OOB and preparing to inbound it

Just a Coach

Gary
We do the same - grab the ball and fly. I teach my post players to grab it right out of the net, step out and fling it to our point guard and we are off to the races. I think refs tend also to adjust to this, but your experiences may differ. Again, I am referring to the run of the mill made basket, ball bounces once, A makes lazy grab and begins to move toward OOB while B is calling TO. A isn't in any hurry to inbound so B isn't getting a huge advantage. In the other case you cite, a total miscall and I haven't seen it done that way and not have it later called an inadvertent whistle.

interesting
 

I'll remember this one if we are ever down by 4 or 5 with 10-15 seconds left and no timeouts! Thanks!