last to touch - first to touch

[rsl]

At a high school camp with NFHS rules.

A1 has control of the ball in the frontcourt. B1 knocks the
ball loose. A2 knocks the ball so B1 can't grab it, then chases
it down in back court.

I whistle back court violation. First one I have ever called on
the "last to touch - first to touch" rule.

Coach yells at me. At next time out, D2 evaluator tells me I
messed up because team control ended on B1's tap. I say
"yes sir" to the evaluator and smile.

4-12-3 says team control continues until opponent secures control.
9-9-1 says this is backcourt violation

What good is being right if nobody knows?
Or, did I kick this call and I am still clueless?

[Hugh Refner]

Tell the D2 evaluator to go back to working driveway basketball. Under NF rules, team control ends when there is a shot, a dead ball or the other team gains control. Team B would have only gained team control if one of their players gained player control. Player control is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. B1 did neither, so no player control, therefore no team control for team B, therefore no loss of team control for team A.

You are not the clueless one here. You did not kick it. Of course, if B1 would have kicked it, it's a dead ball.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

Tell the D2 evaluator to go back to working driveway basketball.

Don't be too hard on the evaluator- It was a good camp and he gave me ten
other suggestions that were great advice. I'm guessing the college rule is
different as well.

In this case, I blame the rule. A rule is not very effective when 99% of coaches and players don't know or understand it. This rule falls in that category.

But this an old topic on this forum. I shouldn't incite anything.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rsl

I'm guessing the college rule is
different as well.

Nope, the NCAA rule is exactly the same. It is worded differently because of there being team control during a throw-in, but the written exceptions make the rule yield ALL of the same calls as at the NFHS level.
This D2 guy must be one of those officials with great "presence" to offset his lack of rules knowledge.

Originally Posted by rsl

In this case, I blame the rule. A rule is not very effective when 99% of coaches and players don't know or understand it. This rule falls in that category.

I blame the coaches, players, and officials who don't know or understand the rule. I have seen numerous backcourt violations passed on at the NCAA level because the "philosophy" that it is a picky call which will only upset people from the penalized team. Obviously, I don't agree with that thought.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rsl

I say "yes sir" to the evaluator and smile.

That's always the way to speak to evaluators at camps, no matter what the level, no matter how incorrect the evaluator is.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's always the way to speak to evaluators at camps, no matter what the level, no matter how incorrect the evaluator is.

What a SHAME it is when evaluators teach the incorrect rule to the camper who has paid to get better
Especially on a rule that's the same at both levels the evaluator works

Believe it or not, I had a buddy tell me of a situation where the clinicians told a camper, for a player to establish themselves on the court they needed two feet inbounds... isn't that ruling the same in all 3 codes

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I blame the officials who don't know the rule.

Me too

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by rsl

At next time out, D2 evaluator tells me I
messed up because team control ended on B1's tap. I say
"yes sir" to the evaluator and smile.

First of all, you handled the situation perfectly. You made the correct call, and you did not argue with the clinician even when you knew you were right...stuff happens and we have to be resilient and learn to bounce back. Hopefully you did not stew about it the rest of the game and let it affect you.

Secondly - was this a local HS camp (local to you)? If so, do you know this clinician or have any kind of way to contact him? If so, maybe contact him and ask the question - pose it as I really want to learn type of question. Chances are he will give a big "oops" you were right. After all, he's only human and we all make mistakes.

But kudos on handling it the way you did.

[Adam]

I would like to think i'd have handled it the same, but don't know. Having a rule book in my bag would have made it difficult to let that one go.

"Show me."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would like to think i'd have handled it the same, but don't know. Having a rule book in my bag would have made it difficult to let that one go.

"Show me."

Some of us have learned the hard way that sometimes even when we are right, we are wrong...getting into a pissing contest with a clinician - even when you prove yourself right according to the rule book - is not necessarily a good way to help your career. Posing it as a question - please help me understand this - is a much better way to go. That way everyone benefits.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

First of all, you handled the situation perfectly. You made the correct call, and you did not argue with the clinician even when you knew you were right...stuff happens and we have to be resilient and learn to bounce back. Hopefully you did not stew about it the rest of the game and let it affect you.

Secondly - was this a local HS camp (local to you)? If so, do you know this clinician or have any kind of way to contact him? If so, maybe contact him and ask the question - pose it as I really want to learn type of question. Chances are he will give a big "oops" you were right. After all, he's only human and we all make mistakes.

But kudos on handling it the way you did.

I have to disagree.

I detest @ss-kissing, and I see no valid reason why someone in a position of power or supervisory role should be agreed with when one KNOWS that such a person is dead wrong.

While acting in this way may allow the individual official to advance, this is exactly the kind of stuff that prevents officiating in general from advancing.

This isn't the military.

[rsl]

By the time I posted here, I had checked the rule book and knew the answer
and knew I was right.

Standing in front of the evaluator, I wasn't so sure. I think the best advice
to a young official is not to argue with an evaluator. Most of the time the
more senior official is right, and you lose valuable mentoring time with your
nose in the rule book. Not to mention you may hurt your career.

I am only a second year official, but early on I decided never to trust anyone
on a rule interpretation. I always look it up myself to confirm later. The rule
book is the only ultimate authority (except for this forum of course ).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Some of us have learned the hard way that sometimes even when we are right, we are wrong...getting into a pissing contest with a clinician - even when you prove yourself right according to the rule book - is not necessarily a good way to help your career. Posing it as a question - please help me understand this - is a much better way to go. That way everyone benefits.

Oh, I agree. Like I said, I would hope I would have handled it the same way. And if I couldn't have found an acceptably diplomatic way to say it, I would have left it alone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have to disagree.

I detest @ss-kissing, and I see no valid reason why someone in a position of power or supervisory role should be agreed with when one KNOWS that such a person is dead wrong.

While acting in this way may allow the individual official to advance, this is exactly the kind of stuff that prevents officiating in general from advancing.

This isn't the military.

I disagree. An official who stunts his own advancement out of principal in a situation like this isn't going to help officiating advance if he's stuck at the bottom. Frankly, it's going to take people who, for the most part, have played the game even though they think it's crap.

No, it's not the military; it's politics.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have to disagree.

I detest @ss-kissing, and I see no valid reason why someone in a position of power or supervisory role should be agreed with when one KNOWS that such a person is dead wrong.

While acting in this way may allow the individual official to advance, this is exactly the kind of stuff that prevents officiating in general from advancing.

This isn't the military.

@ss kissing? Really? How in the world would you consider a measured appropriate response in this sitaution @ss kissing? The alternative is to stand on principle, disagree with the evaluator, and possibly get labeled as argumentative or worse.

You may make your point and prove the evaluator wrong. He gets pi$$ed, the camper gets dinged or worse. And yet you see this as a potential advancement of officiating? This would be a case of winning a battle and blowing yourself up in the process. I couldn't disagree more.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

@ss kissing? Really? How in the world would you consider a measured appropriate response in this sitaution @ss kissing? The alternative is to stand on principle, disagree with the evaluator, and possibly get labeled as argumentative or worse.

You may make your point and prove the evaluator wrong. He gets pi$$ed, the camper gets dinged or worse. And yet you see this as a potential advancement of officiating? This would be a case of winning a battle and blowing yourself up in the process. I couldn't disagree more.

Exactly...some people would argue that they were right and the evaluator was wrong, regardless of the consequences to them or their career. There are better ways to handle things than the in your face "you are wrong and I am right" attitude. But, again, some people don't get that and never will. For a second year official, rsl handled this in a remarkably mature manner.