Suggestion to new officials

[isualum12]

Disclaimer: I am a second year official that went to camp this summer and learned a ton from this board last year and plan to do the same this year.

This year at camp I heard this suggestion so I have used it this preseason and it is a solid idea. I wish I had used it last year.

In our area we are given the part one test with our books. They require 1st and 2nd year guys to take it home and take the test. (Everyone has to take the other test on the test night to be certified) Obviously it is open book and many of the questions you don't have to open the book for if you know the game Example: The coach or captain shall designate which player(s) shall attempt the free thros for a technical foul. Seems streight forward and easy to answer.

This year I took that test and answered all 100 questions but I also required myself to look up each and every question and write down Rule number- Section- Art. Even the questions that seemed streight forward I had to read through the section to find the correct rule-section-art. In this process I ended up reading the entire book a couple times and covering other things that are not covered in the test.

You may not be the fastest on the court or the cleanest mechanics but you can always know the rules....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by isualum12

You may not be the fastest on the court or the cleanest mechanics but you can always know the rules....

True, but many people are not going to give you a shot if you cannot keep up or you do not have good mechanics. If you have good mechanics and good positioning, you are going to have better judgment by default than if you have do not have good mechanics or positioning.

I will never suggest that rules are not important, but rules are not what most basketball officials get that deep into. We basically call very basic fouls and basic violations. Those are based on judgments, not hard fast rules.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

I've done this, looked up every rule and noted the citation, every year. It is a big part of my pre-season study. Sadly we've gone to online testing this year. I guess I can still look up every question, but it seems different somehow.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

... But rules are not what most basketball officials get that deep into....
Peace

wow.

[MikeK27]

Since I am a new official this year I looked up all the questions for the test also. I went through the test once, only verifying answers I did not know, then went through it again on each question. This way I could make notes on things to study more later. I thought it was a very valuable exercise for me.

[Kingsman1288]

In my experience as a basketball official so far, I've seen there are really two types of officials. There are those who are "rule guys" i.e. those who can quote from the rule book at will and never have to look anything up. They can give you the rule number, sub-section, paragraph, etc. Then there are also those who read the rule book, yes, but can't quote from it at will, etc but have a more philosophical bent toward officiating.

I guess what it boils down to is there are "rule guys" and "philosophy guys"

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Kingsman1288

In my experience as a basketball official so far, I've seen there are really two types of officials. There are those who are "rule guys" i.e. those who can quote from the rule book at will and never have to look anything up. They can give you the rule number, sub-section, paragraph, etc. Then there are also those who read the rule book, yes, but can't quote from it at will, etc but have a more philosophical bent toward officiating.

I guess what it boils down to is there are "rule guys" and "philosophy guys"

You're a pot-stirrer, aren't ya?

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by Kingsman1288

In my experience as a basketball official so far, I've seen there are really two types of officials. There are those who are "rule guys" i.e. those who can quote from the rule book at will and never have to look anything up. They can give you the rule number, sub-section, paragraph, etc. Then there are also those who read the rule book, yes, but can't quote from it at will, etc but have a more philosophical bent toward officiating.

I guess what it boils down to is there are "rule guys" and "philosophy guys"

And you would be wrong... There are three types, the two you mention above and those that know the rules backwards and forwards and know how to apply them towards the intent they were written. In other words they know how to take a philosopocal approach to properly applying the exact intent of the rules.

Their philosophy is based on a complete understanding of the rules and their intent.

[stripes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will never suggest that rules are not important, but rules are not what most basketball officials get that deep into. We basically call very basic fouls and basic violations. Those are based on judgments, not hard fast rules.

Peace

This is not a popular opinon on this forum, but I agree wuth Jeff.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by stripes

This is not a popular opinon on this forum, but I agree wuth Jeff.

Not popular because it is the complete wrong mentality. I am of the school of thought that you need to know the rules backwards and forwards but also know how to properly apply them and use common sense. When you get that odd ball play, you better know the rules.

Case in point... Had a play last year where a kid got creamed on a breakaway. By some random act of God, the ball still went through the basket. My partner cleared everyone and lined they guy up for ONE shot. I tweet my whistle, step in and say, nope two shots. The other partner hits his whistle and signals we need to have a conference. We seperate the teams, and he tells me in our conference that the ball went in. I said I know, I called an Intentional foul so its two shots. Other partner pipes in and says, but we are telling you the ball went in. And I repeated, I know... Its an intentional foul and he gets two shots no matter what (by now we all look like bungling a$$clowns out there who don't have a clue). I finally say guys we are shooting two and its on me if its wrong (since I know the rules I knew there was no downside for me). Now the coach explodes and I explain to him and he says... you are the only one out there who thinks that it's two shots. My response... I know coach and I am the only one who is right. I ended up whacking him in the next quarter. He emailed the next day admitting I was right and apologizing.

Guys, YOU MUST KNOW THE RULES... ALL OF THEM (accept for the one stating the NFHS stamp must be on the ball for HS games and the like). It is equally important to KNOW HOW TO APPLY THEM TO THE SPIRT AND INTENT AS WRITTEN. IT NEED NOT BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

[isualum12]

You can be in the right position but if you don't know it is a technical when they reach across the line and hit the throwers arm as a defender your going to get eaten alive.

Originally Posted by isualum12

You can be in the right position but if you don't know it is a technical when they reach across the line and hit the throwers arm as a defender your going to get eaten alive.

That would be an intentional PERSONAL foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by isualum12

You can be in the right position but if you don't know it is a technical when they reach across the line and hit the throwers arm as a defender your going to get eaten alive.

I am not trying to be funny with you, not many coaches know that rule and most players do not violate that rule in the first place. I have not had that play in well over 5 years and it has never happen at a sophomore or JV game (let along varsity and college) that I have ever done.

Most of the game you are expected to be in the right position or no one is really going to believe you had a good look at the play and you are out of position. This is why I say it matters little to the general public (including the coaches and players) that is watching. Most of our calls are judgments about a basic travel to a basic foul. There are not many games you see multiple Ts and unusual situations.

If there is very hard contact on a play, you could have nothing, a regular foul, maybe a shooting foul, an intentional foul and even a flagrant foul based on your judgment. It is not the rule that saves us; it is our positioning and our good judgment. If you are not in position, no one is going to buy what you are selling.

Peace

[Kingsman1288]

I never said anything about not having to know the rules to be an effective referee. Have I read the rule book cover to cover? Yes. Can I quote the exact rule, paragraph, sub-section, etc. on every call I make? No.

Does that make me a bad official? Apparently to some it does.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

Not popular because it is the complete wrong mentality. I am of the school of thought that you need to know the rules backwards and forwards but also know how to properly apply them and use common sense. When you get that odd ball play, you better know the rules. Guys, YOU MUST KNOW THE RULES. ALL OF THEM. It is equally important to KNOW HOW TO APPLY THEM TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT AS WRITTEN. IT NEED NOT BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

Great post. You're right. If you get that rare oddball play, you had better know the rule, because if you don't you, and your partner, are going to look like idiots, and the coaches, players, fans, local sports reporter, and the cable TV announcer are going to have a field day. Here in the Land of Steady Habits, we had officials come back out of the locker room, after the game "ended", after they has left the visual confines of the court, to correct a scorekeeping error. The "losing" team ended up winning. Fair? Probably. By the book? No. The officials were "hung out to dry", not only in the local press, but throughout the entire state. These officials will never live this down.