Bulls/Cavs- changed call?

[zeedonk]

I was waiting to see if anybody posted on this play from last night...

Late in the 4th, Rose is fouled by Shaq- the ball goes up and in. C gives the "and one". Crew comes together and then changes the call to a simple blocking foul. Now that is what I saw- perhaps I missed an explanation.

Did I see that right? What is the NBA rule on continuation and is changing a call proper?


Also, didn't the same "C" also have another tough call almost immediately after changing the call on Rose...? I thought he did, but can't remember the specific play. Wonder how many of us in the same situation (not NBA) would be crowning the HC at the HS or College level after changing a call and then having the next call go against him/her...?

[Nevadaref]

Two things:
1. I thought that the foul was clearly prior to the action of shooting, but that is coming from an NFHS and NCAA perspective. The NBA rules on this aspect of the game seem to be different and give the offensive player a more favorable slant. Perhaps by NBA rules he was shooting.

2. I thought that the offensive player traveled after being fouled and prior to releasing the try for goal. Of course, by NBA rules, perhaps he didn't travel.

[tref]

I saw that! Thought he should've got the bucket +1 because he gathered & never dribbled again. They DID lose by two as well. It can happen to the best of us.

I think its appropriate for partners to provide info & the calling official change their call or not, at any level of play.

Not sure about any subsequent calls...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

Wonder how many of us in the same situation (not NBA) would be crowning the HC at the HS or College level after changing a call and then having the next call go against him/her...?

What exactly does this mean?

Are you saying that after a HC gets a T that the next call shouldn't go against his team? If so, that's complete BS. I would hope that no self-respecting official would try to mitigate the penalty for a technical foul by looking for a call against the other team as the next call to make.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. I thought that the foul was clearly prior to the action of shooting, but that is coming from an NFHS and NCAA perspective. The NBA rules on this aspect of the game seem to be different and give the offensive player a more favorable slant. Perhaps by NBA rules he was shooting.

I disagree Nevada. The rules are written the same in all 3 codes. They use different words that mean essentially the same thing. The NBA uses "gather" & that is by far the best definition.

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tref

I disagree Nevada. The rules are written the same in all 3 codes. They use different words that mean essentially the same thing. The NBA uses "gather" & that is by far the best definition.

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of that particular play and if our judgment differs that's no big deal.

However, you are not correct about the rules for all three codes being written the same. Simply ending the dribble by gathering the ball does not begin the act of shooting at the NFHS or NCAA levels.
The NBA also has something about "upward movement" iirc, but I'm no expert on the rules at that level, yet I can tell you with certainty that they don't match the other two levels.

Even more importantly the interpretation of the written rules differs at the NFHS and NCAA levels. So how these plays are commonly called is vastly different.

[tref]

I respect that!
But as I sit here looking at the continuous motion rule in all three books, it still means the same thing at all levels to me.

IMO, A1 driving to the basket below the FT line extended, picks up their dribblle & illegal contact occurs. If they dont pass or request a TO & continue with the shot, I like to put em on the line.

[Nevadaref]

Please try something for me and see if it gives you pause to think about your current position. Instead of looking at the definition of continuous motion focus upon the definition of "act of shooting," particularly how it begins. See if there is any discernible difference there amongst the codes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

And I disagree completely. Just call the damn play without any pre-determination of what the call should be. Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I disagree completely. Just call the damn play without any pre-determination of what the call should be. Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

His difficulty appears to be that he may not have a solid grasp of exactly what constitutes being in the act of shooting.
I've asked him to research that point.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

I understand JR & appreciate the opinion of decision maker! Thats exactly what I do, on each play that a player is fouled on a drive to the hoop, if they dont dribble again, pass or request a TO, they're shooting FTs in my ballgames.

For the record, the TIMING of the whistle is what makes it easier to sell. If you pop upon immediate contact, you'll get some grief. Patient whistles on drives to the bucket are much more easier to sell.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

His difficulty appears to be that he may not have a solid grasp of exactly what constitutes being in the act of shooting.
I've asked him to research that point.

Nevada, I dont have any "difficulties" with the act of shooting & when it begins/ends nor the continuation rule. We just dont see eye to eye, no more no less...

IMHO officials that look for a reason to take the ball out instead of rewarding the player with FTs have the difficulty
Just kidding, I respect your stance but I will keep doing what has been working me & my progression in the craft

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

For the record, the TIMING of the whistle is what makes it easier to sell. If you pop upon immediate contact, you'll get some grief. Patient whistles on drives to the bucket are much more easier to sell.

For the record, I don't agree with that either. If you get the call correct, there is never a need to sell anything. Why do you have to sell any right call? And I could care less if I get some grief. Just deal with what comes up. And personally, I'm always a little bit concerned about any official who does worry about getting some grief. I'm always wondering whether they're gonna be able to make a tough call that they know is gonna bring the house down on their head.

Simply appearing confident in what you are doing is always the best sell imo.

Jmo.

[zeedonk]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What exactly does this mean?

Are you saying that after a HC gets a T that the next call shouldn't go against his team? If so, that's complete BS. I would hope that no self-respecting official would try to mitigate the penalty for a technical foul by looking for a call against the other team as the next call to make.

Nah, my lack of recollection of the next play is the problem, plus my comment is a little vague- I meant to wonder out loud that if I were the C on the changed call, then had second controversial call immediately thereafter, WHEN I crown the coach for his sideline antics, how would each official handle the subsequent conversation with the coach?

Really, at the HS or college level, how do you try to diffuse the situation and move forward? What DON'T you want to say in terms of an explanation if you are C or either partner?

I would never suggest attempting to jimmy a call so a coach doesn't get peeved, nor would I go the "make up call" route.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

For the record, I don't agree with that either. If you get the call correct, there is never a need to sell anything. Why do you have to sell any right call?

Have you ever seen a CC go down the toilet because of the officials weak presentation to the table?
Or an IC not be questioned whatsoever because of the officials verbal at the spot & a strong presentation?

Thats what I mean by "selling the call" NOT hopping all over the court & those type of antics.
We have to be believable JR or nobodys gonna buy our act. I've seen "that guy" and boy do they have long nights when nobody is buying their act.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I could care less if I get some grief. Just deal with what comes up. And personally, I'm always a little bit concerned about any official who does worry about getting some grief. I'm always wondering whether they're gonna be able to make a tough call that they know is gonna bring the house down on their head.

Couldn't agree with you more! My swag on the court is, what I DO speaks so loudly that I CANNOT hear what you say.
Meaning, once I pop & indicate 2 shots then the coach/players says "that was late" or "this is not the NBA" I'm going to the table stronger than normal, verbalizing/signaling where he got em & how play will continue in a very professional manner

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Simply appearing confident in what you are doing is always the best sell imo.

Jmo.

Great point! Inner self confidence is the best recipe to sell ourselves & our calls. Is everyone gonna buy our act all the time? NO! For the ones that dont comply or decide to go over the top, well, we have tools to take care of that

That's all I have to say on this. I may need assignments from you someday! lol

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by tref

Have you ever seen a CC go down the toilet because of the officials weak presentation to the table?

How, specifically, does a correct call go "down the toilet," for this or any other reason?