Working with a Veteran

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

...Hustle, hustle, hustle...

Just because the Instructional Chair is super anal and literal, in Southern Nevada we have replaced hustle with "get in position to see the play." Many officials will hustle to look like they are doing something and/or will hustle themselves right out of position to see plays.

[bainsey]

Good responses thus far.

What if your rookie trail and you witnessed the following: A-1 loses control in the frontcourt. B-2 taps the ball into the air over the backcourt. A-1 runs to the backcourt and touches the ball before it hits the floor. Your partner offers no whistle, thinking no violation took place.

Now, mbyron and JRut offer solid reasons why they'd leave such things alone, and I doubt this scenario would change their minds. Cam also offers a good reason to blow the whistle.

Anyone else? Does this new scenario change things?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

A-1 loses control in the frontcourt. B-2 taps the ball into the air over the backcourt. A-1 runs to the backcourt and touches the ball before it hits the floor.

No violation did take place.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good responses thus far.

What if your rookie trail and you witnessed the following: A-1 loses control in the frontcourt. B-2 taps the ball into the air over the backcourt. A-1 runs to the backcourt and touches the ball before it hits the floor. Your partner offers no whistle, thinking no violation took place.

Now, mbyron and JRut offer solid reasons why they'd leave such things alone, and I doubt this scenario would change their minds. Cam also offers a good reason to blow the whistle.

Anyone else? Does this new scenario change things?

Camron stated he's only calling this if the ball came from his primary. The odds of your scenario happening in the lead's primary are slim to none.

Secondly (I know, there was not "first of all"), your scenario is not a violation by rule; in spite of the interp.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Secondly (I know, there was not "first of all"), your scenario is not a violation by rule; in spite of the interp.

Correct, and thankfully so.

I just came from our IAABO board's fall conference, and one of the things mentioned was a change in interpretation on this very play. Long story short, it's not a violation. A few of us at the meeting expressed pleasure about the change, as last year's didn't make sense to us.