Called player running OOB the other night

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.