my camp experience

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Just returned from camps at Penn State last week. Spent Sunday to Thursday working individual camp, which was mostly coaching but included a little officiating. My first comment is that one-man is impossible. I was hustling my tuckus off but there was still way too much I couldn't see. And if I couldn't see it, I didn't call it, so there were a few trainwrecks with no whistle. One-man is even harder when you have the clock (a watch) and the arrow as well!

Thursday to Saturday was team camp. My assistant coaches brought the team up on Thursday. We had five games, all officiated by PIAA officials (and a few new guys). I only had one game with any complaints. Both guys were calling the game tightly, so at halftime I asked the one to loosen up a bit. Well, he did, but the other guy didn't. So for about four straight possessions, there were rebounding foul whistles, all at one end, since they weren't switching except on shooting fouls. How can you officiate fairly without switching? No two guys are going to call a game the same way.

We also did something called special situations, where in an hour we'd play out three situations (each of them twice, one starting on offense, one starting on defense). The situations would be something like 45 seconds left, down by 1, inbound under opponent's basket, for example. My team and I loved these, and I think the officials did too. We did pretty well on them. In one of the last ones we did, I had a player take an intentional delay of game by stepping on the line during an inbound with 2 seconds left so we could see the opponent's play. I gave the official a heads-up to watch for my player stepping on the line.

All-in-all a good experience. So far I've survived the entire summer without a negative word to an official, living up to my vow! I know it won't be so easy in December!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
In one of the last ones we did, I had a player take an intentional delay of game by stepping on the line during an inbound with 2 seconds left so we could see the opponent's play. I gave the official a heads-up to watch for my player stepping on the line.

Casebook 9.2.11 Comment: "In situations with the clock running and five or less [sic] seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic."

Coach, even tho this comment is addressing situations in which the clock is running and there are five seconds or fewer remaining in the game, the last sentence leads me to think that we could apply it to your situation as well. If the official stops the game to give the warning, your team has benefited from breaking the rules. I would be tempted to ignore the infraction unless contact was made with the inbounder.

In NBA rules, this is a T for delay, with no warning.

Chuck

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Casebook 9.2.11 Comment: "In situations with the clock running and five or less [sic] seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic."

Coach, even tho this comment is addressing situations in which the clock is running and there are five seconds or fewer remaining in the game, the last sentence leads me to think that we could apply it to your situation as well. If the official stops the game to give the warning, your team has benefited from breaking the rules. I would be tempted to ignore the infraction unless contact was made with the inbounder.

In NBA rules, this is a T for delay, with no warning.

Chuck

Chuck,I don't think that there is anything in the book that will allow you to call a T in this specific situation-where the clock is stopped and a defensive player crosses the OOB plane without contacting the ball or the player with the ball.The current language says that it's a warning only,to be then followed by a T.It's a loophole,but if enough coaches start to use it,I'm sure that it will be filled.You can't penalise a coach for using the current rules to his advantage.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You can't penalise a coach for using the current rules to his advantage.

I'm not sure I would call it, I just said I would be tempted. My main point, though, was that the casebook specifically says that the ruling is in place to keep a team from benefiting by breaking the rule. The spirit of the rule (jeez, here we go again, right? ) seems to be that you shouldn't be able to get an advantage from breaking the delay rules. That's why ruling an immediate T is tempting. It's also why the NBA changed their delay rule. But you're right -- by rule, it's legal.

Chuck

[Jurassic Referee]

[/B][/QUOTE]
My main point, though, was that the casebook specifically says that the ruling is in place to keep a team from benefiting by breaking the rule. The spirit of the rule (jeez, here we go again, right? ) seems to be that you shouldn't be able to get an advantage from breaking the delay rules.

[/B][/QUOTE]I agree with you completely,Chuck!The advantage that the coach is getting in this case should probably be illegal,but he's smart enough to use the current rules to gain a legal advantage for his team.Can't do anything else but tip my hat to him,and wait for the rule to change.The NBA rule seems like an appropriate solution.

[JRutledge]

of how the casebook clarifies or has a ruling not specificially covered in the rulebook. It might not be the most popular ruling, but I see why it is there.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge
of how the casebook clarifies or has a ruling not specificially covered in the rulebook. It might not be the most popular ruling, but I see why it is there.

Peace

Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I'm not sure I would call it, I just said I would be tempted. My main point, though, was that the casebook specifically says that the ruling is in place to keep a team from benefiting by breaking the rule. The spirit of the rule (jeez, here we go again, right? ) seems to be that you shouldn't be able to get an advantage from breaking the delay rules. That's why ruling an immediate T is tempting. It's also why the NBA changed their delay rule. But you're right -- by rule, it's legal.

I don't see this any differently than fouling in the final minutes to stop the clock. The defense is gaining an advantage by fouling, yet we're very careful about calling such fouls intentional. Maybe the NF will make it a POE someday!

Bottom line - I wouldn't call a T in the situation PA Coach described either.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above?

Woody, see Camron's post under Padgett's thread. Pick whichever of the 3 points listed that applies and you'll get your answer.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Woody, see Camron's post under Padgett's thread. Pick whichever of the 3 points listed that applies and you'll get your answer.

I think we can just call it Camron's Law from now on. It
does seem to cover all possibilites!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above?

I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond?

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond?

Peace
[/B]

These guys are doing you a favor, Jeff, dignifying your comments with rebuttals. I wouldn't push them too far in the no-response direction.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker

These guys are doing you a favor, Jeff, dignifying your comments with rebuttals. I wouldn't push them too far in the no-response direction. [/B]

Julie,

The favor they are giving me is a laugh. That is all it is worth at this point.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

[/B][/QUOTE]
I have a question, why do you care what I say? You are always right, I am always wrong, why respond?


[/B][/QUOTE]Well,Rut,I am not always right and you are not always wrong.However,when either one of us is obviously wrong,we both have to expect to be corrected-and we certainly will be.There's too many sharp guys and gals tuning in here to expect otherwise.That's why this forum is a good learning experience for all of us,or should be,-and that's why I respond.Believe it or not,there's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.It doesn't bother me,but it sureashell seems to bother you.You absolutely refuse to do it.
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans.Just be thankful we haven't started on the Cubbies,yet!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Also,it's a good place to rag on the Bosox fans.

You know, why don't you guys just go admit that the Yankees steal the division every year. It's ok when you buy it -- you have the resources, you use them. I can live with that. But Mondesi for one minor league lefty?!?!?! 30 years ago, Bowie Kuhn invalidated several deals that the A's made and the A's got a whole lot more for Vida Blue than the Jays got for Mondesi. It's not just sour grapes from a Sox fan, either. Deals like that one, and the fire sale in Miami back in '96 are bad for overall competition and the health of the industry.

Chuck

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

You know, why don't you guys just go admit that the Yankees steal the division every year. It's ok when you buy it -- you have the resources, you use them. I can live with that. But Mondesi for one minor league lefty?!?!?! 30 years ago, Bowie Kuhn invalidated several deals that the A's made and the A's got a whole lot more for Vida Blue than the Jays got for Mondesi. It's not just sour grapes from a Sox fan, either. Deals like that one, and the fire sale in Miami back in '96 are bad for overall competition and the health of the industry.

Chuck

Faded early this year, no?