Called player running OOB the other night

[Scrapper1]

Very tough decision, IMHO. Last minute of a tie game. Haven't had to call it all night until now. Not going around a screen or getting an advantage, just sort of lost his bearings.

But obvious.

I think I would probably let it go unless he popped open on the other side and got the pass. I know that's more like the college rule, but it seems to fit this particular situation better. I would hate to call something that had literally no effect on the game at that point of that game.

Having said that, I will not fault you for calling an obvious violation. You were there, I wasn't. The purpose of the rule is to keep players inbounds and your player didn't step out for two steps and then come back in. He was OBVIOUSLY in violation.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Very tough decision, IMHO. Last minute of a tie game. Haven't had to call it all night until now. Not going around a screen or getting an advantage, just sort of lost his bearings.

You described all the reasons I'm having any second thoughts at all, Scrapper. The main thing I saw in looking back was that he was so far OOB, it would have been easy for the defense to lose track of him, and it was a blatant violation.

But, I'm certainly open to having this discussion and having my mind changed. Needless to say, it was controversial in the gym!

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Needless to say, it was controversial in the gym!

I just cannot imagine officiating in a gym that was not nice and courteous when a call goes against their team

-Josh

[Back In The Saddle]

Two thoughts:

1) Call the obvious
2) Call what matters

Sometimes a violation is both obvious and matters. But not always.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Last minute

tie game.

Haven't had to call it all night until now.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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

Only if you're 100% sure it didn't happen earlier in the game.

What if it happened twice earlier, but in front of your partner, and they decided to pass on it because there was no affect on the play, and you decided to call it now?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Only if you're 100% sure it didn't happen earlier in the game.

What if it happened twice earlier, but in front of your partner, and they decided to pass on it because there was no affect on the play, and you decided to call it now?

I understand your point, but I think you're parsing words more than anything else.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I understand your point, but I think you're parsing words more than anything else.

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

If anyone is parsing words on this, it's you.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If anyone is parsing words on this, it's you.

Nobody can parse words: parsing is done to sentences (which are made of words, naturally).

I apologize for pettifogging.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I understand your point, but I think you're parsing words more than anything else.

And I understand your point as well. I agree if it's a violation in the first minute, it should be a violation in the last minute. But we also need to be consistent as a crew, and that was my only point - I hope jdw3018 and their partner were consistent on that call. If it had not happened at any point earlier, I don't have a big problem with making that call, especially if the player was far enough OOB that's it's obvious on tape. But I would have a problem if the team had run that particular play a couple of times previous, and the partner passed on it while jdw3018 calls it at that particular time in the game.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And I understand your point as well. I agree if it's a violation in the first minute, it should be a violation in the last minute. But we also need to be consistent as a crew, and that was my only point - I hope jdw3018 and their partner were consistent on that call. If it had not happened at any point earlier, I don't have a big problem with making that call, especially if the player was far enough OOB that's it's obvious on tape. But I would have a problem if the team had run that particular play a couple of times previous, and the partner passed on it while jdw3018 calls it at that particular time in the game.

Really good point. I hadn't seen it earlier, and in talking with my partners afterwards neither had seen it and both agreed with the call (for whatever it's worth).

So...consistency wasn't an issue.

Oh, and no doubt the player was far enough out it was obvious on tape - except that he may have been so far out that it would have been out of the frame of the video!

[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 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?