You mean like this one?


9.3.3 SITUATION B:

That's exactly what was described.

The play:
After the basket by team B - team A under back court pressure inbounds the ball, there is man to man pressure in the back court, with the ball being advanced casually by A1 under pressure between the FT line and top of the key.

It also doesn't say the ball is live, that A1 hasn't been previously disqualified, or that this didn't happen during warmups...but we make assumptions on those points.

Common sense must be applied in absence of every little detail being specified. This case play, like many others, assumes a typical situation. How many baseline double screens do you see when the ball is 70+ ft. away?

Do you call 3 seconds on the point guard for being in the top corner of the lane for more than 3 seconds when the ball is being trapped at the division line? Didn't think so.

I'm with you and not calling it based on what's been described by OP. The intent is clearly advantage/disadvantage and if that didn't happen, I've got nothing.

At times when, I come to this site rules are discussed adamantly to blood almost being spilled on computer screens. Other times, I find it unbelieveable. This is one of those times. Yes, there are alot of unknown factors and the spirit of the rule come into play. I truly do not believe this is one of those situations. The way I understand the spirit of the rule is those situations when the rule is a tweener where the Referee has to make a decision.

In the OP, how do we as an official do not know that the play is not a design play because the coach is counting on us to take the SPIRIT OF THE RULE approach and gain an advantage from calling the play.

Why take the chance?

I will make the call whether the play is 3' or 104' away.

This is why the Feds should take the NCAA approach and eliminate supposed perceived game interrupter(s) interpret by some.

I used to call the game the way you and others suggest. Doing so will get you only so far. Calling things like this, nearly a full court from the play and such that you are the only one who has any idea it happened, will only cause others (partners, evaluators, assignors, coaches, etc.) to wonder if you even understand the game.

Some people want the game to be black-and-white and have difficulty seeing grey. But it is not and it never will be. Every rule has a reason and we must understand the reason for the rule before we can intelligently apply it....not just blindly apply it. That is the art of refereeing.

There is no chance you're taking by not calling it or delaying the call. It should, fairly quickly, be evident whether it is by design and relevant.

This is simply an out-of-the-blue call. No one is expecting it. No on will be looking anywhere near it; you'll be the only one who saw it. Nobody (observers, coaches, fans, players, etc.) will even know what happened until you explain it. It's not unsportsmanlike or flragrant....so leave it alone. Make many of those non-obvious calls and you'll limit your career.

Do you really think the NCAA promotes calling stuff like this? In watching games on TV, how many off-screen whistles do you normally observe? Near zero. When you do get one, it is usually a rough, physical foul.

In how the OP was stated, though a HTBT, I do agree with you philosophically. I also disagree with your "career" comment. I refuse to make calls, or no calls based on what it might do to my "career". I get plenty of games, games I want, and have no desire to do college ball.......

Just for a general note this is technical foul in the NCAA

Fouls and Penalties Art. 9. Deceptively leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason and returning at a more advantageous position.

So given the situation as posted you make that call, with a player who has moved further away from the ball that is in the backcourt under pressure and did not recieve a pass when they came back in bounds, and see how many more games your supervisor gives you.

While they are promoting more calls on this type of play as noted by the videos from last year, it is obvious by the rule that having the advantageous position can be confirmed by being wide open when recieving the pass from a team mate.

Disagree. That rule is for the player who sneaks out of the side door of the gym, goes down the hallway and reenters the gym (and court) at the other end.

"Running out of bounds around a screen" is a violation in NCAA if (and only if) the player is the first to touch the ball after s/he returns to the court.

As for the career element, our games are assigned by an assignor, not by ADs/Coaches (as I think you may be thinking). So, I'm with you on making the right call without regard to what the coaches/ADs/Players think. But, when working for an assignor, you should be making the calls with regard to what your assignor expects. When an official develops a reputation of calling goofy stuff that is technically correct but is not the accepted norm and no one expects, many assignors will pick someone else when given a choice.

It's not about moving up to college. It is about not being a plumber. Our job is not to find everything wrong a team/player does...but to manage a game and ensure that no team/player gains an advantage not intended by the rules. An official that calls everything they see just because they see it will not go far....missing the larger picture of what intent of the rules are.

In addition to Camron's comments, officiating is just like like any other independent contracting job - we have to meet our clients/customers' expectations if we want to continue working and/or work more. Our clients are the individuals who assign us games.

I love to come here to debate and discuss calling philosophy. I love to debate and discuss it with other officials. But sometime last year, when I came to the realization that this is no different from any other job and if I want to keep doing it I have to please the "boss" first and foremost, how to call the game became much easier for me.

Where there is room for personal interpretation, I apply my personal philosophy. But by asking my assignors and other veteran officials about how the association wants things called, I've taken a lot of chance out of the process and am seeing a lot of success.

My goal was the same at camp - both HS and college - this summer. To ask early on as much as I could from the evaluators to try to get a sense of their philosophies and then do my best to apply them on the court.

In the end there's no reason to believe your philosophy of the game should take precedence over your supervisor's - unless it's something so ingrained and personal to you that you feel you can't violate it, and then you have a decision on whether you want to keep working or not.

I have strong opinions about how the game should be called, but little of that matters when I'm working for someone else.

extreemely well put.

From the "preamble" to NFHS Rule 1:

"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

To those arguing for a whistle here, how would you answer the following questions?

1. Can you clearly explain the advantage our little lost lamb gained?
2. Can you clearly explain the disadvantage the other team was placed at?
3. Would other reasonable, knowledgeable, and objective people consider this an intelligent application of the rules?

This call will have a very significant and direct impact on the outcome of the game. So...take your time answering. Everybody in the gym awaits your clear, rational, and compelling explanation about why this was a good call. ;)

I'm willing to accept that this is looking for snot; I probably wouldn't have made the call unless it looked a lot like a designed press-breaker play.

I'm not going to throw another official under the bus, though, for making this call.

Also very well put Camron.

FWIW, I'm probably not making this call either.