more firsts
 

Saw two things last night I had never seen before.

1. A ten second call in a boys varsity game with no pressure. Home point guard was walking it up, calling a play. At about the count of 6 coach yells no, so and so, you come take the point. So and so comes into the backcourt and takes the ball, but makes a little loop deeper into the backcourt while looking to the bench for further instructions. There was no sense of urgency from anyone other than the visitors sideline, who started to say "10" at the count of 8.
I reached 10 just as the kid crossed the line with his first foot. He looked shocked, then embarrassed. Coach threw up his hands and mumbled something.

2. Kicking violation by the offense. Visitors point guard mishandled a pass. it bounced off his hand, then hit his lower leg and started to roll away. He casually reached out with his foot and raked the ball back to himself.

I could see the backcourt violation happening....even though 10 secs is a long time, some players take their time.

I had one a few weeks ago where in the second half of a Rec League game during a foul shot, the H coach called a player over to the bench to discuss strategy. Unfortunately, they were both well below the free-throw line extended and the coach caused the violation.

When I blew the whistle, first I got :eek:, then I got :o. The coach about wanted to crawl into a hole.

Numerous times I have seen the team in possession avoid a violation because they've been made aware that they're close to the 10-second count because the defense is yelling for the 10-second call. Defensive teams always yell early for that one. Why, I dunno. We ain't gunna count faster.

I called 10 in a girls V game last week. Big girl for the home team comes down with a board after a FT, and she does that pivoty thing to keep opponents off her. She does this for -- literally -- 4 seconds (I'm counting, you see). Then she passes it, and the guard moseys up to the division line.

Well, I whistle the violation, and the coach goes ballistic! That's the fastest 10 seconds I've ever seen, blah blah blah.

The clock showed 4:20. "Coach, the free throws were shot with 4:31 on the clock." ;)

Did you have an opportunity for some preventive officiating here?

Understand your point. I would have liked to. But the ball was already at the disposal of the shooter as the coach then waved the young man - who was properly behind the free-throw line extended and behind the three-point line over to him. I didn't think blowing it dead and moving him out without penalty at that point was appropriate.

I'm not going to speak for Bob here but just go over to the coach at the next dead ball and say, "Coach do you realize on a FT if you're players are talking with you and standing below FT line extended it's a violation?" It wasn't intentional and I'm sure it just slipped his mind. Was he gaining an advantage? Just let it go

-Josh

And I certainly understand this point of view too. I'm not out to be an a$$hole. But to me, it was as if someone had entered or left the lane after I placed the ball at the disposal of the shooter. Maybe under a different circumstance or if I can get the ball back before its at the disposal of the shooter I will treat it differnetly. In this case it was very apparent and obvious and I chose to call it.

I send that message by calling the violation. ;)

Me, too; normally.

The shot clock has really made the back court counts more interesting. It is ok if the shot clock opperator is paying attention. I have had several that were close but the clock started several seconds late. Also with the opposite when the clock was started early.

Preventive Officiating ...
 

Agree. Wave the player back.

9-4 TRAVEL, KICK, FIST
A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-
29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from
below.

4-29 KICKING THE BALL
Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot.

Did the player actually strike the ball with his foot? I think that the intent of this rule and the wording of this rule conflict. I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking.

You can rake all day, but the thing you're trying to move won't move unless you strike it with the rake. The ball moved.

"How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on." :cool:

A first for me
 

We were getting ready to start the second quarter of a GV game last night and the home coach asked if he could have a 60-second timeout -- he had a player who was getting taped up after rolling an ankle and he wanted her on the floor to start the quarter. First time anyone has asked for a timeout between periods in one of my games since I started officiating (I think, the early days are a bit of a blur).

I'm impressed that the coach knew to use a T-O.

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting
includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

So, if a player makes contact with a player and the player moves, are you going to call this striking and eject the player for a flagrant foul?

Per 10-3-5 slapping or striking the backboard is a technical foul. If a player touches the backboard, are you going to call a technical foul?

Just curious. As I stated earlier, I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking. Based on the multiple definitions of striking that are in the Rules Book, one could still interpret your play, in my opinion, as being legal -- even though I believe that the intent of the rule is to make it illegal.

Your other references have no relevance in the discussion of this play. Apparently you are disturbed by the use of the verb rake in this situation.
Okay, the player intentionally used his foot to play the ball. He extended the foot, gently struck the ball, and pushed it back to himself. It was a kicking violation.

JAR,
This has NOTHING to do with your use of the verb rake. It has everything to do with the use of the word "striking" when discussing a kick and in these other references in the Rules Book. Players placing their foot on top of the ball and rolling the ball back to themselves have USED their foot, but they have not "struck" the ball in the sense that the word "striking" is used elsewhere in the Rules Book.

I am not objecting as to whether the INTENT of the Rules Book is to consider this use of the foot to be illegal. I am merely suggesting that in lieu of using the words "intentionally striking the ball with the foot (or leg)" the wording should be changed to "intentionally contacting the ball with the foot (or leg)". This change in the wording would eliminate any question as to the intent of this rule.

This is a case where the intent of the rule must be known to determine how to apply it. When you take that into account, the rule is fine as is.

Not that it wouldn't be improved if done as you suggest.

Shaqs,
The problem that I see with the current wording is that there are many officials who KNOW the Rules Book, BUT do NOT know the game. For these folks, the clearer the wording, the better.

And does your research also tell you that there are <b>many</b> coaches that know the game but don't have a clue when it comes to rules?

Does your research also tell you that there are <b>many</b> coaches who don't know the game OR the rules?

Btw, just to be explicit, what is the exact percentage of officials that know the rulebook but don't know the game, according to your extensive research?

PS- my own extensive research tells me that 41.36% of all coaches know the game but don't know the rules. And 49.85% of all coaches don't know the game or the rules. Which leaves 8.79% of all coaches that know both the rules and the game. I know that figure might sound high to my officiating brethren, but that's what my extensive research came up with.

Jurassic,
Depending upon your threshold for "knowing the rules", the 8.79% number could be very high to moderately high -- I am quite certain that far less than 2 in 23 understand the last-touch-first-touch back court violation, for example.

I can tell you that I can confidently state that I understand the game of basketball better than 95+% of the coaches. And, no, I am not a coach anymore.

I was NOT comparing the knowledge of the coaches to the officials when I made the statement (simply because I have both coach and ref in my user name, do not assume that statements I make are comparing the two).

It is the officials, NOT the coaches, who are the ones who must know and interpret the rules. I stand by my statement that many (means more than three -- a couple being two, a few being three or so -- without specifying a number or a specific percentage) of the officials know the rules, but do not necessarily understand the game. The number of coaches -- and associated percentages -- who do/don't know the game is irrelevant in this discussion as they are not the ones responsible for enforcing the rules.

Therefore, it makes sense to me to modify the current wording describing illegally using the foot to "intentionally contacting the ball with the foot (or leg)."

P.S. I think the change in wording would help the coaches understand the rule a bit better as well.

Hmmmmm......

The dictionary definition of "many" means "a <b>large</b> or considerable number; <b>numerous</b>". Afaik, that seems to be the general understanding of the term "many" too.

I have no doubt that you stand by your statement. If you think that a large and considerable number of officials don't have a clue what the game is about, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I have a little bit more regard and respect for my fellow officials' knowledge and understanding of the game. Aamof I think that <b>"MANY"</b> of my <i>confreres</i> might just understand the game a helluva lot better than you'd ever dream of giving them credit.

Did you ever think that maybe learning the nuances of certain rules like a "kicked ball" might be part of the normal learning curve for "many" officials as they gain experience and knowledge? You know, the real reason that "many" officials (including me) come to forums like this?

Naw, I guess not.

Sorry I wasted your time.....

Jurassic,
I would say that "many" officials (including BOTH of us) are on this forum right now (probably between 15 and 45 in number). I would say that MOST officials understand the game and the rules just fine -- I never said that they did not. At the same time, there are indeed a number of officials who do NOT understand the game. You are nitpicking on one word MANY, this is unfortunate.

I feel that I am a fairly decent official with a good understanding of the game. At the same time, I think that changing the words in this section of the rule book would make administering the rule easier for all officials including those newer to the game. There are many newer officials who try to memorize the book. My point in this case is that modifying the words of this rule would likely cause these officials to get this call correct. Further, this change would NOT adversely affect your ability nor the ability of any of our esteemed and experienced fellow officials from getting this call correct.

Look at all the "simple" questions that get asked here. Look at all the crap in the IdiotVillage videos. Look at all the ref-league refs.

"Many" is a reasonably apt description, I think, especially given the vagaries of "understand the rules and the game."

IOW, I think you're just stirring the ****, here.