Called player running OOB the other night

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, he's explaining what Scrappy meant. We have to do that sometimes.

I disagreed with Scrapper's point that it was a tough call because it was the last minute of a tie ball game and the call hadn't needed to be made all night.

None of those three (unless you change the context of them, which M&M did with his post) should influence the calling of a foul or violation.

Of course you can change the context of a scenario and make it fit your opinion.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I disagreed with Scrapper's point that it was a tough call because it was the last minute of a tie ball game and the call hadn't needed to be made all night.

None of those three (unless you change the context of them, which M&M did with his post) should influence the calling of a foul or violation.

Of course you can change the context of a scenario and make it fit your opinion.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but we didn't know the entire context, so we were inserting possibilities into the scenario. But, to Scrappy's point, let's say we have a tie game, under 1:00 left, A just scored and runs back to play a zone defense, B1 is slowly dribbling the ball up in the backcourt with no pressure. As B1 holds up one hand to signal the play, the hand that's dribbling slides under the ball, and for a brief moment the ball comes to rest before continuing to dribble.

Do you call this violation? There are some that would say it would be a violation early, or in a blowout game, but not in this particular instance, with the game on the line and no apparent advantage gained. Others would say this is a violation, no matter what, no matter how picky. I believe that might be Scrappy's point - sometimes (though rare), the game situation does come into play in what gets called and what doesn't. Yes, theoretically it shouldn't. And I am certainly not an expert as to when it should and shoudn't. But it is something that officials who have progressed seemed to have mastered.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Not meaning to be argumentative, but we didn't know the entire context, so we were inserting possibilities into the scenario.

I hear you. No worries.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Not meaning to be argumentative, but we didn't know the entire context, so we were inserting possibilities into the scenario. But, to Scrappy's point, let's say we have a tie game, under 1:00 left, A just scored and runs back to play a zone defense, B1 is slowly dribbling the ball up in the backcourt with no pressure. As B1 holds up one hand to signal the play, the hand that's dribbling slides under the ball, and for a brief moment the ball comes to rest before continuing to dribble.

Ooh, that's a game-interrupter. Right?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ooh, that's a game-interrupter. Right?

1) I'm the R.
2) Shut up.

(Oh, wait, that's something else.)

I certainly don't have a clear handle on what's a "violation no matter what", and what's a "game-interrupter". If I did, I would transcribe it for BillyMac to add to one of his lists. One can usually be safe in calling things "by the book", but we all know there's a difference between being a "Rule Book Ronnie" and calling things as accepted. Sometimes that's taking into account the game situation in making calls.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

None of these should have any influence over the calling of a foul or violation.

Obviously, I disagree; otherwise, I wouldn't have written what I did.

Tie game, 30 seconds left. Point guard is unguarded near midcourt dribbling the clock down until they start their final offensive set. As he's standing, not even attempting to advance the ball, he palms the ball and continues dribbling. You calling a violation? Not me.

40 point game, final minute. Center for the losing team sets a back screen without leaving time for the defender to go around it. You haven't had any illegal screens to this point in the game. You calling the foul? Not me.

Final seconds of the game, trailing team scores to cut the lead to 1 point. Defender intentionally steps across the throw-in plane and waves his arms, hoping you'll stop the clock for the delay warning. You stopping the clock? Not me.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I certainly don't have a clear handle on what's a "violation no matter what", and what's a "game-interrupter". If I did, I would transcribe it for BillyMac to add to one of his lists. One can usually be safe in calling things "by the book", but we all know there's a difference between being a "Rule Book Ronnie" and calling things as accepted. Sometimes that's taking into account the game situation in making calls.

I had a long discussion about this principle the other night with my JV partner. We had just had a rules meeting a couple nights before, and the format of the meeting was basically newer officials asking questions that the Varsity officials could answer. When the JV officials ran out of questions, the Varsity officials just started handing out advice on subjects they deemed relevant.

One very well-respected Varsity official raised his hand and said (paraphrased), “Nine times out of ten, 3 seconds is a crap call and all you JV officials need to know that. You guys have to be talking the players out of the lane and if you have a count that is at 2 or 3 and you have a player in the lane who is either about to receive a pass or has the ball, making a move to the basket, or is making at least an attempt to move out of the lane, you hold your whistle.”

My partner and I both had some qualms about this philosophy. I understand that my association wants me to talk players out of fouls (like handchecking) and violations (like 3 seconds) but I don’t understand the principle of setting aside a rule as a whole just because we don’t want the coaches on our back.

What happens when a coach is paying excellent attention to the other team’s offense and he can clearly see that a player is in the lane for 5 or 6 seconds. Regardless of what actions he is performing, according to the rule, he should have been whistled for a violation. What recourse do I have against a coach who is armed with a knowledge of the rules? I can’t just say “Well, Coach, they told us in our meeting that 3 seconds is a crap call.”

Thoughts?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Obviously, I disagree; otherwise, I wouldn't have written what I did.

Tie game, 30 seconds left. Point guard is unguarded near midcourt dribbling the clock down until they start their final offensive set. As he's standing, not even attempting to advance the ball, he palms the ball and continues dribbling. You calling a violation? Not me.

40 point game, final minute. Center for the losing team sets a back screen without leaving time for the defender to go around it. You haven't had any illegal screens to this point in the game. You calling the foul? Not me.

Final seconds of the game, trailing team scores to cut the lead to 1 point. Defender intentionally steps across the throw-in plane and waves his arms, hoping you'll stop the clock for the delay warning. You stopping the clock? Not me.

Okay, I hear what you're saying. Although it's hard to hold the whistle when all of those situations are blatantly obvious. You have to call the obvious.

I get tired of the contradiction in terms I hear frequently in regards to officiating. I feel like a lot of times we say things because they sound nice and pretty (call it the same in the last minute as you would in the first) when, in reality, we don't believe at all in what we're saying. We assign absolutes to situations when there are always exceptions.

In the rules meeting the other night, for example, we were told in the SAME MEETING that the rule book is the bible, and we are to stick to it so we are consistent as an association. Then in that SAME MEETING we are fed this load of crap about 3 seconds. Why don't our rule interpreters just dispense with the bull%*# and give it to us straight?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

“Well, Coach, they told us in our meeting that 3 seconds is a crap call.”

Thoughts?

Is 3 seconds a crap call? Nope, there are plenty of players that would love to take advantage of that philosophy, and they would have an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. Is calling 3 seconds while the post player has one foot on the lane line, the other outside the lane, and you just got to 3? Yep, that would be a crap call. By rule, it might be correct, but most officials would say that is not the intent of the rule. Just the mere fact the rules state "Allowance shall be made..." seems to indicate there is leeway in making this call. Do you see an allowance being made for the violation of stepping on a boundary line?

Now, I don't necessarily agree with your V-official who mentioned not to call it if the player is about to receive a pass; the other statements I don't have a big problem with. In fact, making a move towards the basket is one of those allowances, correct? I think what they were perhaps trying to get across is the fact that many new officials seem to over-call this violation, when it's better to see the whole play.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Is 3 seconds a crap call? Nope, there are plenty of players that would love to take advantage of that philosophy, and they would have an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. Is calling 3 seconds while the post player has one foot on the lane line, the other outside the lane, and you just got to 3? Yep, that would be a crap call. By rule, it might be correct, but most officials would say that is not the intent of the rule. Just the mere fact the rules state "Allowance shall be made..." seems to indicate there is leeway in making this call. Do you see an allowance being made for the violation of stepping on a boundary line?

Now, I don't necessarily agree with your V-official who mentioned not to call it if the player is about to receive a pass; the other statements I don't have a big problem with. In fact, making a move towards the basket is one of those allowances, correct? I think what they were perhaps trying to get across is the fact that many new officials seem to over-call this violation, when it's better to see the whole play.

It's still muddy to me. But I'm sure that's what learning to be an official is all about. As the years pass on, the muddy becomes clear.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It's still muddy to me. But I'm sure that's what learning to be an official is all about. As the years pass on, the muddy becomes slightly clearer.

Fixed it for you.

[Juulie Downs]

fiasco, here's my $ .02. The most important thing with anything borderline is to be generally consistent with other refs in your area, so that a player knows ahead of time what to expect. I work in one rec league where we're supposed to call 3 seconds at 3 seconds regardless. Period. Everyone calls it that way and if we don't we get in trouble. In the high school ball I do, I'd get booed off the floor by other refs if I called that way. There's a much broader interpretation of "illegal advantage" as the operative phrase.

I personally would like to see certain rules called differently than they are around here (like 3 seconds!) but I don't have the authority to make that happen, and until it does, I can't just please my own interpretation. If I only do it MY WAY, it's not fair to the players.

Any rule is fair if it's called the same way for both sides, and if all the players know what's going on. It's one of the things that makes regional and state play-off games a little tricky. Refs and players have more adjusting to do.

If you really strongly disagree with the rules, you should lobby hard to change them, or change the interp that';s used. But you can't just do it your way. I think what Scrapper and M&M are saying is that they have adjusted to their level of play in their area and the way they are expected to call things. You sound like the sort of person who can do the same and learn to fit in. THat's the best way to be a good ref. Cooperation.

[M&M Guy]

Well said.

By the way, hi Juulie!

[Back In The Saddle]

Actually, the "allowance" is pretty specific: "Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in or moves immediately to try for goal."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Actually, the "allowance" is pretty specific: "Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in or moves immediately to try for goal."

Or if I haven't called 3 seconds in 2 years and don't want to upset my streak.