When I do an eval, I look to five main areas: 1) court presence, 2) mechanics, 3) judgment on fouls and violations, 4) rules knowledge and application, 5) resistence to overtimes (OK - just kidding on that one). Yesterday, I had a partner who was excellent on the first three. You tell me how she did on the fourth. Here were some of the calls she made in the one game I did with her. BTW - this was a varsity girls spring league tournament, and I was just working with her - no formal eval, just my perception. I never worked with her before and I was told she was a five year vet. All of these calls happened in her area.

A1 inbounds to A2. A2 is in frontcourt, jumps, catches ball in midair and lands in backcourt. Partner calls over and back violation.

A1 dribbling in frontcourt. B1 bats ball. Ball hits A1 in the head and goes into backcourt. Ball is retrieved by A1. Partner gives "tip" signal. No call.

A1 dribbling. A1 dribbles ball off knee. Ball bounces away. A1 catches up with ball and continues dribble without holding ball. Partner calls travel.

A1 grabs rebound in air. As A1 comes down, she falls to ground still holding ball in both hands. No call.

A1 to inbound on endline after basket by team B. A2 jumps OOB on endline. A1 passes ball to A2. As soon as A2 touches ball, partner calls inbound violation (not 5 seconds).

A1 to inbound. B1 reaches over the boundary. It was the first warning. She wants to give B1 a technical because "her intent was to hit the ball."

Here's the kicker. Team A scores. B1 picks up the ball and steps OOB. A1 requests a timeout. Partner Ts A1 for "requesting a timeout when one cannot be granted." I have to admit, I never heard that one before. BTW - team A had two timeouts remaining and she knew that, because we just had checked the table during a break for team fouls and timeouts, so it couldn't have been for requesting an excessive timeout.

Also - she called an intentional foul on B1 for fouling A1 in the act of shooting (good call) - the ball went in and she wanted to award A1 only one free throw because the ball went in. I cut her some slack on this one, because there are quite a few refs I have worked with who get this one wrong.

And yes - I discussed each call with her.

Yeah, but none of that matters since she had good court presence, right? :D

Hey if she is a FEEBLE referee she got the first call right!

(Shame about the others...)

She had great test scores
 

I think she got a 95% on her test. She can officiate anywhere with those test scores. ;)

Peace

Mark P., let me first say that I feel your pain because I have had the same experiences too.

Second, I hope that she is not in Howard Mayo's association because I think that he would be appalled.

Other than what I have just said I do not what to tell you. The real problem is that there are too many officials who are just like her and too many of them have far more years of experience that she does.

I have found that when officials start wanting their brethern to become experts on the rules and mechanics and to really take an interest in their job on the court, the first their brethern tells them that officiaing is a avocation and not a profession. But we all know that officiating is a profession masquerading as an avocation.

As you know, coaches rule the roost in Ohio, and decide who officiates and who does not. On two different occasions this year (one time in the presence of two other varsity officials, one of whom and taken my officiating class), that there were black balling me because I enforce the rules the way that the NFHS Rules Committee wants the rules to be enforced and not the way the coaches in NW Ohio want the rules enforced. I was told that my insistence on: 1) calling charges on offensive players when the defender is moving; 2) not calling "palming" when the dribbler dribles the ball high; and 3) calling disconcerting action when the coach yells to his players along the free throw line while his opponent is shooting free throws, were among the reasons for my black balling.

When I wrote the coaches up on game reports for unethical conduct the state took the position that the coaches could have any official they wanted to officate. Now you know why we have officials like your partner this past weekend.

Keep the faith.

Mark P:
You are a saint for having to endure that
experience. I'm not convinced that
numbers 1-3 could have been so great,
either. I'm sorry, but this is a hopeless
case after 5 years experience, unless a
rehab camp is attended!

Doesn't this ref get screamed at by
coaches all the time? And, have partners
dreading to work with her? I would be
beside myself.

I knew you'd take the bait!
 

Officials who get 95 on their exam don't miss those types of calls because they know the rules.

Only officials who don't know the rules and are only worried about how they look miss thos types of calls.

Marty, many coaches think those calls are correct. :(

Mark, if you don't mind, could you explain the proper procedures for these play? It seems I still have a lot to learn. Thanks alot

Re: I knew you'd take the bait!
 

Again, just because you have book knowledge does not mean that you will know what to call when you see it on the court. Reading a situation is much, much different than seeing the play or plays on the court.

Just because you can quote a rule does not mean you will apply it the proper way when you have coaches, players, fans and other officials in the stands picking at everything you do. There is a thing called pressure and knowing how to stay cool under those circumstances.

But then again Tony you are right. Officials that know the rules do not make those mistakes. But if officiating was only about rules, then officiating would be a lot better. I had a baseball game this evening and the argument that I had at home plate had nothing to do with knowing the rules. It did have to do with my judgement that was being questioned by the coach. It was a much bigger factor how I handled the situation. I could have gotten mad and struck back at the coach and called him names but then again I would never officiate that conference again, and I definitely probably could have kissed my career in all my sports goodby too.

Tony I bet the only one that really recognized this was Mark. I bet not a single coach said a word and if they did was it any different than when you actually get the rules right. I have see coaches all the time complain, and they do not even know the actual rule. They still thought I was horrible and I nailed the rule. But then again I can say this until I am blue in the face :( and you will still disagree. I guess life will move on.


Peace

Re: Re: I knew you'd take the bait!
 

You're correct. This enforces the concept that rec league coaches have no clue as to rules. I'm sure that had this been a sanctioned HS game during the regular season, there would have been a bunch of questions from coaches.

Of course, in that situation, there would be more pressure on her partner to stop after each incorrect interpretation and make a correction on the spot.

BTW - this morning I happened to run into a rec league coach and he spent ten minutes telling me how lousy a ref was that he had in a game this past weekend. I just nodded my head, waited until he finished and then took my meds.

As far as I know, Mark, you're the only one who "knows" this. We've had this conversation before.

Chuck

Re: Re: I knew you'd take the bait!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

Again, just because you have book knowledge does not mean that you will know what to call when you see it on the court. Reading a situation is much, much different than seeing the play or plays on the court. Just because you can quote a rule does not mean you will apply it the proper way

Rut,

I completely agree with your statements above. Knowing the rules is no guarantee that an official will make the correct call on the floor. But not knowing the rules makes it almost impossible for an official to make the correct call on the floor.

Not trying to pick a fight. Just throwing in my $.02

Chuck

An avocation is something that one does not for the money but because the person likes doing it (all right you guys and gals, get your minds out of the gutter).

A profession is a vocation or occupation that requires advanced education and training. And I would like to add that one does it too a high standard.

I did not say that we do not realize sports officiating is an avocation, but far too many officials forget the professional aspect of sports officiating. If a person is going to step out onto a basketball court or any other sports venue to officiate a sport and accept money for it, then that person should be giving 100% and everything that entails.

I have seen officials who officiate my oldest son's 12U games that are so lazy that they never come within five feet of the crossing the division line when going from L to T. They are there just to collect the $15 per game. Not to mention that their shoes look like they had been through the trench warfare of World War 1 and their uniforms looked like they had been wearing them while sleeping those same trenches.

I do not expect every basketball official to put the time in that I do to the avocation/profession that I do. There are enough of us that do. But there are certain things that all officials should be doing and too many of them are not.

No offense, Mark, but that's simply not what a profession is. Skydiving is an avocation that requires advanced education and training. However, skydiving is not a profession, in itself. There are plenty of people who do it on weekends just for the fun of it. In fact, I think most people who do it fall (no pun intended!!) into this category. Additionally, trash collecting -- while an important and worthwhile profession -- does not require any advanced education or training. So a profession cannot be an avocation or profession which requires advanced training or education.

Officiating is not a profession for 95% of the people who participate in it. Period.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on May 14th, 2002 at 08:54 AM]

Re: Re: I knew you'd take the bait!
 

Tony I bet the only one that really recognized this was Mark. I bet not a single coach said a word and if they did was it any different than when you actually get the rules right. I have see coaches all the time complain, and they do not even know the actual rule. They still thought I was horrible and I nailed the rule. But then again I can say this until I am blue in the face :( and you will still disagree. I guess life will move on.


JR: As Mark P. stated, often the coaches don't know the ref is getting the call wrong. And he often screams and
yells when you make the CORRECT call. But so what? That
has nothing to do with one's integrity as a referee.
Just because coaches complain either way, we thus can do a lousy job??? And, if Mark was the ONLY one to notice these mistakes, he is the only one who mattered anyway (except for the kids who got cheated). HE had to work with her. HE had to try to ref a game fairly with an incompetent partner. Knowing these basic calls (and they all are, except maybe the last one) is essential. One with this lack of knowledge and instinct needs to shape up, or ship out. (After 5 years) IMO

An explanation for Cornellref
 

Cornellref,

Here's an explanation of why these calls were wrong. I hope that you learn from the mistakes of others and this will help you out:


Situation #1 - In this case, the backcourt violation was called during a throw-in. Exception # 1 to the backcourt violation exludes this call during a jump ball or a throw-in. This should have been a no call.

Situation # 2 - This should have been a backcourt violation. All four elements were present. The ball was in A's team control. The ball had achieved frontcourt status. The ball was last touched by A1 and the ball was first touched in backcourt by team A.

Situation # 3 - In this situation, A1's dribble never ended because he never held the ball. It simply bounced off his knee and was continued a few feet away after he chased it down.

Situation # 4 - This play should have been a travel. A1 achieved player control by catching the rebound. When he touched something other than hand or foot to the floor, TWEET!

Situation # 5 - This play is funny because Mark's partner even misapplied the rule he was getting wrong already. After a made basket, the opponent may pass along the endline to another teammate and / or teammates as long as the five second count doesn't expire so there shouldn't have been a violation here. If it had been a designated spot throw-in, only the thrower can be off the playing floor, the violation would have occurred as soon as the teammate stepped out of bounds, not when he caught the pass from his teammate.

Situation # 6 - We don't judge intent in this case. If the player reaches across the boundary line and touches nothing, we issue a warning the first time and a technical the second time. If the player touches the ball, we issue a technical without warning. If the player hits the opponent, we call an intentional foul.

Situation # 7 - In the final situation, the time for B1 to request a timeout had passed because the ball was at the disposal of team A. The requested timeout should have just been ignored. There is no such thing as a technical for requesting a timeout when it's not the proper time.

Mark P - my question is this: How did your partner respond to you when you "discussed" these plays with her? Did she realize her mistakes or did she argue and try to defend her calls...let's face it, 5 years of experience doesn't necessarily mean squat - those 5 years could all be games down at the local YMCA, or they could be sanctioned HS and Jr. High games - who knows? Working with a partner who blows calls regularly is part of this "job" (not profession) - I can handle that part as long as the partners are receptive to some polite feedback...so I am interested in how she responded to you when you told her she was wrong...

Several months ago there was a very long discussion on the "other" board regarding disconcertion.You were extremely adamant at that time that you could NOT call disconcertion,by rule,on any bench member.You stated that you could only call disconsertion on a player on the floor,and that,if anyone on the bench disconcerted,the only call that could possibly be made was a T.I was just wondering what your actual call was in (3)above to get the coaches so riled-a disconsertion violation or a T?Or both?
Btw,does Ohio have any appeal process for an offical that thinks that he has been wrongfully blackballed?If not,there should be one!
Also,btw,below the D1 level,officiating is an avocation that you should pursue in a professional manner.JMO.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 14th, 2002 at 10:12 AM]

5 years experience can also be 1 year of experience done 5 times. Years of service is not a guarantee that the person is "getting it."

Barry, thanks for taking the time. It definitely helped me-
Cornellref

Re: I knew you'd take the bait!
 

It depends on HOW the person got the 95. In IL, the part 1 test is take-home, open book. Too many officials just show up at the association meeting where the test is discussed, write down the correct answers and turn in the test. They score high, but they don't learn anything.

Too, (to Rut's point) many officials don't know how to read the book. They just look for the test statement in the book -- if they find it, the answer is true, if not the answer is false. They don't visualize the play being discussed so they can recognize it on the floor.

And, finally, like MP's partner -- the official too often gets positive reinforcement for making the wrong call and negative reinforcement for making the right call. IT doesn't take much of this to make a rookie official start to make wrong calls.

Each and every time one of you wants to call us howler monkeys, remember this quote. The reason some of us howl is because some of us know the rules better than some of you, and we can talk some of you into calls. If I get this official, I'm going to start quoting rules passages and citing references in my howling.

She was not very receptive. Those of you who have had the privilege, pleasure and honor of working with me (;)) know that I always discuss calls with a partner in a non-confrontational and non-embarrassing manner. Usually, I say something like this at a break, "Say, on that (whatever) call, I thought I saw (whatever). What did you see?"

I think there were hidden reasons she resented any comments but I will not go into them here.

OK. Try this quiz. Answer true or false to each question. All rulings are under current NF rules. In all questions, team A is on offense and team B is on defense.

_____ 1) A1 passes to A2 who does not catch the ball cleanly. The ball hits his hands and then it drops to the floor. A2 then grabs the ball and begins to dribble. This is a violation on A2.

_____ 2) A1 is inbounding in his front court. He inbounds to A2 who is also in frontcourt. The inbound pass hits A2 in the hand, deflects into backcourt where it is first touched by A2. This is a violation on A2.

_____ 3) A1 is dribbling in the backcourt. As he approaches the division line, he dribbles the ball once in the frontcourt and steps into the frontcourt with one foot. He then touches that same foot in the backcourt. This is a violation on A1.

_____ 4) A1 dives for a loose ball and while on the floor, grabs the ball with both hands. His momentum causes him to roll over twice. This is a violation on A1.

_____ 5) A1 attempts to shoot a jump shot. B1 blocks the shot by putting his hand directly on the ball. A1 is unable to release the shot and returns to the floor holding the ball by himself. This is a violation on A1.

_____ 6) A1 shoots toward his basket. The ball misses and does not hit either the rim or the backboard. Before the ball hits the floor, it is caught by A1. This is a violation on A1.

_____ 7) Team A has used all its timeouts. During a dead ball, A1 requests a timeout. Team A is not allowed this timeout.

_____8) A1 is fouled and appears to be injured. The official beckons Coach A onto the court to attend to A1. However, before the coach can come onto the floor, A1 gets up and says he can continue. A1 is allowed to stay in the game.

_____9) A1 is dribbling the ball. B1 goes up to A1 and, while making an attempt to play the ball, he pushes A1 off the court and into the bleachers. This is a common personal foul on B1.

_____10) A1 is at the free throw line to shoot the first shot of a two-shot foul. B1 and B2 are occupying the first space next to the endline on each side of the lane, but B3 is in one of the next spaces instead of a player from Team A. A1 misses the free throw. This is a violation by Team B and A1 will be allowed to reshoot the free throw.

_____11) A1 is dribbling the ball in his backcourt following a throw-in. The official reaches seven seconds in his ten second count. A1 requests and is granted a timeout. When Team A inbounds following the timeout, they will have three seconds to get the ball into frontcourt.

_____12) There is a jump ball called and Team A will inbound under the alternating possession rule. A1 throws the ball inbounds and before it is touched by anyone on the court, A2 fouls B1. The AP arrow is switched to Team B’s direction for the next alternating possession.

_____ 13) Following a made basket by Team B, A1 will inbound on the endline. Prior to throwing the ball in, A1 asks for a timeout and it is granted. When Team A comes back to inbound the ball, they have lost the right to run the endline on the inbound play and there will be a spot throw-in instead.

_____ 14) While shooting a two-point shot, A1 is intentionally fouled by B1. The shot goes in the basket. The basket counts and A1 will be awarded one free throw, then Team A will get possession of the ball for a throw-in.

_____ 15) A1 attempts a shot. Prior to his leaving the floor, B1 establishes and maintains legal guarding position. A1 releases the ball toward the basket, then falls on B1. The shot goes in the basket. The basket counts and A1 is charged with an offensive foul.

_____ 16) During the last two minutes of the fourth quarter, immediately following a basket by A1, Team B requests and is granted a timeout. After the timeout, Team B may, at their option, inbound the ball at the midcourt line.

_____ 17) A1 is standing in the frontcourt with his feet inside the lane. After two seconds, A2 takes a shot and the ball rebounds to A3. Two seconds later, A3 takes a shot. A1 has been in the lane a total of 4 seconds. This is a violation on Team A.

_____ 18) A1 is dribbling the ball with his right hand and has his left forearm extended to protect the ball. B1 attempts to swipe at the ball and makes contact with A1’s extended forearm. This is a foul on B1.

_____ 19) A1 is dribbling the ball. The ball bounces high and he dribbles once with his hand higher than his shoulder. This is a violation on A1.

_____ 20) Following a violation by Team B, A1 is inbounding on a spot throw-in. While holding the ball, he begins to pivot on his left foot. He then changes and pivots on his right foot. This is a violation on A1.

Re: An explanation for Cornellref
 

Barry - just to put on my nit-picky hat for a moment, the fourth element is that the ball was first touched by team A after it had been in the backcourt. There's a subtle difference in the wording. Plus, of course, the third must include the words in the frontcourt.

the answers
 

1. F (you can fumble-dribble-fumble, but not dribble-fumble-dribble)
2. F (no team control)
3. F (while dribbling, must have all three points across)
4. F (since it was his momentum, no violation, but hard to picture rolling over twice)
5. F (this is a held ball if the official judges the block to have prevented the release of the ball)
6. F (if the official judges this to be a try, no violation under NFHS rules)
7. F (official must grant the request, then assess a technical foul)
8. F (unless, under this year's rule change, team A calls a timeout)
9. F (the severity of the contact, knocking the player into the bleachers, would probably cause the official to call this an intentional foul)

10. F
11. F (restart the count)
12. F (the throw-in, by definition, has not been completed, and the arrow doesn't change until the throw-in is completed)
13. F
14. F (shoot two for all intentional fouls, except those on a player in the act of missing a three-point try)
15. F (the play is dead at the time of the foul, the basket would only count if the ball had already passed through the basket)
16. F (throw-in at same spot as before timeout)
17. F (team control ends on a try, and there must be team control for a three-second violation)
18. F
19. F (the height of the dribble has nothing to do with anything, except to make the fans go OOOOOOOH)
20. F (A1 may dance a jig if he'd like, so long as he keeps at least one foot on or over the designated three-foot space)

How'd I do?

Re: Re: I knew you'd take the bait!
 

But if you don't have rules knowledge, you definitely won't know what to call.



I'm not discussing judgment, I'm discussing rules knowledge. Your baseball play has nothing to do with this. All of the plays that Mark brought up are rules knowledge. They have nothing to do with judgment.



I will disagree with what? :confused:

Coaches don't know the rules. As Marty stated, so what?Does that mean that we shouldn't call the play properly or that we shouldn't know the rules? Mark's partner looked good on the court, yet she missed the plays. I would rather get the call right than look good making a bad call.

As Chuck said "Knowing the rules is no guarantee that an official will make the correct call on the floor. But not knowing the rules makes it almost impossible for an official to make the correct call on the floor." Mark's partner didn't know the rules.

Bob, in NC, we take our annual exam closed book, so that's what I was baseing my statement.

I would think most would agree that they would rather be on the floor with someone who is a little unpolished but knew the rules as opposed to someone who looked real good, but kept blowing any rule applications. Or is that just me?

Coach, in 31 years of officiating basketball, I know only two high school coaches that knew the rules. Notice I said knew the rules, not knew the rules better than the officials. The first one, was my high school coach, who believed that you could not teach the game if you did not know the rules. The second one, who is a varsity coach, who has the same philosophy and is a good young official to boot. I keep trying to lure him from the dark side and only officiate.

Regardless of the competency of the officials, the vast majority of officials (good, bad, or indifferent) should score better than most coaches on a rules test.

You still miss the point Tony.
 

This discussion has taken on a life of his own. You have completely missed the original point. You have missrepresented my argument time and time again. You keep talking about things that I did not say and do not seem to understand or want to understand the point.

Tony, you need it all. You cannot pass a stupid test and go out on the court and think you will be the perfect ref. Most coaches, players, fans or evaluators and officials will not have a clue about your test score unless you tell them. I have never had a coach ever ask me what my score on the Part 1 or Part 2 and then treat me differently because of that fact. But I have come to the basketball game early, looking like a professional, I might be treated differently than the officials that shows up in their uniform. But to me that is really only a very small part of it. That is does not really have nothing to do with your presense on the court. That has more to do with your professionalism, which most of us would agree we are very much judged by.

Look, I have quoted rules to coaches only to have them think I was crazy and I got no where with them. But when I handle myself with confidence and act as the calm surrounded by the storm, coaches and players respect that much more. And that confidence does not just come from knowing the rules, it comes from knowing my mechanics, understanding the game, knowing myself and many times my partners. Just knowing what my partners are going to do or what their characteristics are like can be an extremely calming influence on how you present yourself. The less you have to worry about the better.

Here this and quote it if you need to. THE MORE YOU KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE RULES, THE MORE YOU WILL HAVE PRESENSE ON THE COURT. In the game of basketball you are not judged as often by rules. Their are usually many more myths in the game of basketball then the games of football and baseball. So because of that fact, just simply being able to quote a rule is not going to be something that you will be judged on in as big a way as many officials think. Yeah when you mess up you will, but if you have no rules mess ups and you call a perfect game, it will be the "other" things that will affect how you are precieved. Just something as wearing glasses can affect how coaches treat you. Seen any D1 officials with glasses lately? I am sure they wear them, but you will not see them on the court that is for sure.

Tony, rules are the foundation for what we all do. You cannot be an official without knowledge and knowing how to apply rules. But I know several officials that know the rules but do not know the game or understand the game. You know what many of us call common sense. That is why I do not officiate and probably never will officiate volleyball or soccer. I might understand the rules of both games, but I did not play either and do not understand the "common sense" of the game. As I said the rules are the foundation, but not the end all be all of the game or officating. You have to build on that. Why do you think Ed Rush asked me all those questions about my competitive background? The NBA game is surely much different in the rules as compared to NF or even college to a great extent. Not by much, but the things you do and do not do at the NBA as an official is totally different than what most of us do. And if that is not the case, why do many of officials that are below those levels not understand or cannot agree on what the rules are for or what is being called on a regular basis?

Let us agree on this Tony, if I have a chance to work with a guy or gal that is an official, I will want different things from them then you will. Not much different than the discussion that I had with Stripes about camps. He has no problem spending $1000 on going to a single camp and travelling to do so. I would rather stay local and learn from people that I will have to deal with. But also because of where I live I am exposed to officials that work in the NBA, other pro leagues and D1 College for both Men's and Women's ball. So my area has that wealth of great officials surrounding me, and Stripes might have to travel to get that. I do not know that but it might explain some of the arugments that both of us had on camps. ;) This discussion between you and I Tony or anyone else that disagrees with me might just be a product of our environment.

Peace

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!

Re: Re: An explanation for Cornellref
 

In Marks original play, B had the ball and was OOB. Whether he is facing the floor or not is inmaterial. A TO should noy be granted at this point, even under the most liberal of terms.

Ahh, but you can still grant the timeout during an inadvertent whistle.

Actually had that happen during AAU regionals. We called TO as soon as we made the basket (2 players signalled for it and I did - one was right under the basket!), official missed all three initial requests, ball was being inbounded when he finally noticed and granted the TO. In reality, the TO should have been granted upon request but he was not sufficiently aware to see three diffferent people request the TO. He should never have granted it at the time he did.

The official that granted the timeout realized he made an error, and loked at a loss as to what should be done. It appeared that he was going to just put the ball back in play. Due to discussions on this forum, I knew what the right call should be - inadvertent whistle, TO granted. He and his partner got together and his partner called us over and explained the call (just as stated above). Opposing coach was livid, I was glad we got what we had legitimately requested and had been ignored. Neither of us was happy with official #1.

Hawks Coach,try this one on for size.Eight seconds to go,A scores and is down 1 point,A calls TO after B grabs ball and is just stepping over the end line for throw-in---noting that you certainly know the rule,what do you want called if:
1)You are the A coach.
2)You are the B coach.

JR
I accept in either condition (me being A or B) the ref granting the TO - that is, in my experience, the way the game is called. If we are trying to inbound, we will do it as quickly as possible to eliminate to all exents possible the TO call. But if we aren't even OOB yet, go ahead and call it and I won't gripe!

The condition I agreed with Gary on was the one where the ref granted the TO 3 seconds into the 5 count - that should never happen.

Coach,I don't have a problem with that at all.That's not what I'd call a "late" TO.I'm talking about granting one when it's called as the thrower-in has the ball and is crossing or already over the end line.That,to me,is a "late" TO and gives the D an unfair advantage.

Re: interesting
 

You're welcome,coach!:D I've had coaches admit to me that they've done this.I think that there's nothing the matter with knowing the rulebook,and using it to your advantage.It's like getting to know the tendencies of officials that you see fairly often.Smart coaches do it.

Re: Re: interesting
 

Just remember - if this happens with 5 seconds or less on the clock, it needs to be either ignored, or it gets an automatic T (without previous warning).

Coach, was this boys or girls, NF or NCAA?

Hawks Coach:

You don't seem to be having much luck with "our" officials. I assume you are talking about the recent action at Westfields/Jefferson. If so, unfortunately, in these situations you see the best and the worst of "our" officials. Quite a few of our varsity officials will not, for some unknown reason, work AAU ball. I would much rather work girls AAU than girls rec leagues.

Re: Re: Re: interesting
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

Just remember - if this happens with 5 seconds or less on the clock, it needs to be either ignored, or it gets an automatic T (without previous warning).

Mark, that was my thought too, but I can't find the rule that covers that situation. Got a citation?

Chuck

Re: Re: Re: Re: interesting
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter Quote: Just remember - if this happens with 5 seconds or less on the clock, it needs to be either ignored, or it gets an automatic T (without previous warning). Mark, that was my thought too, but I can't find the rule that covers that situation. Got a citation? Chuck

My books are, honestly, in the mail right now. This is covered in the case book (NF at least, don't know if it's a rule in NCAA) as a note in or around the section regarding technical fouls for throw-in plane boundary violations. I'll post it here once I have access.

dblref, are your NCAA girls games played under NF or NCAA rules? Does Hawks coach have girls or boys?

Re: Re: Re: Re: interesting
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter Quote: Just remember - if this happens with 5 seconds or less on the clock, it needs to be either ignored, or it gets an automatic T (without previous warning). Mark, that was my thought too, but I can't find the rule that covers that situation. Got a citation?

9.2.11 SITUATION:
Comment: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

Hold on a second, the suggested ploy involved knocking the ball away after a made basket in order to draw a first warning. This warning is covered under 10-1-5(d). The case book citation you have offered involves a boundary plane warning in the last five seconds. These are two distinctly different warnings. The case book for 10-1-5(d) doesn't have the "last second tactic" situation included. Do we ascribe the 9-2-11 ruling to the 10-1-5 ruling because they both have the same intent?

I vote yes :)

I was simply responding to Chuck's question to Mark, with regards to where the 5 second or less play was located in the case book. My reply was not meant to address anything other than that.

With regards to knocing the ball away to get a delay of game penalty, I'm not stopping the game in that situation. I'll retreive the ball myself, with the clock running and toss it to the thrower.

It was girls, NF (with NCAA womens rules on FTs) standard AAU.

Why do you ask?
 

Tony
Why was it relevant NCAA vs NF, boys vs girls? I don't know NCAA that well, but once you have a whistle and a stoppage, I can get a timeout, right? This is true even if the whistle was the result of an original request for a TO when I couldn't legitimately request one, but you erroneously gave me one anyway. Regardless of what set of rules we use. Once you stop play, you have to administer an inbounds, and before you hand the ball over, I can ask for a timeout legitimately. And you then should grant it, even if the inbounds shouldn't have been happening.

Re: Why do you ask?
 

No, not in NCAA. In NCAA, once the error is recognized, play resumes. You can't be granted the timeout in such a case. The interpretation is different than in NF play.

In NC, we use straight NCAA Women's rules for girls. My understanding is that's what's used at the national level. That's why I questioned what rules you were playing under.

No - I was just pointing out a slightly different situation which would be illegal.

The NCAA women's angle would have made this a more interesting call in the medal rounds. In preliminaries, we only employ the FT rule. In the medal round, we use "modified NCAA" women's rules, which I take to mean NF modified by using other NCAA women's rules we happen to know employed the way we think they work :)

So in the medal round we add the shot clock and eliminate the 10 second BC count (but also count 5 sec closely guarded). However, I don't think we add in this rule for inadvertent TOs, or ay other subtle rule differences.

Tony - seems to depend on the particular AAU tournament. Sometimes it is strictly NF, and sometimes it is modified NCAA rules -- usually dealing with number of players on the lane for F/T and going on the release vs waiting for it to hit. There is normally a "tourney rules" sheet for us at the table. Hawks Coach has girls team, but I think I remember him saying he has more than one team. I'm sure he will see this and correct me if I am wrong.

Tony:

Should have read the entire thread before replying. I see that Hawks Coach has already addressed your question and I forgot about the 30 second clock being added in the later rounds. In VA, we use straight NF rules except for girls private schools where the 30 second clock is used in all varsity games, and I think (senior moment) it is sometimes not used in JV games. I don't recall private school girls having freshman teams. My association does not do a lot of private schools. I think most of the games are handled by an IAABO board in the Distric of Columbia and MD.