The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules

[MelbRef]

"Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand"

Is it OK for the point guard to palm his way down the court if no-one is around him?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by MelbRef

"Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand"

Is it OK for the point guard to palm his way down the court if no-one is around him?

Good catch. The words "gains an advantage" should be removed. Advantage/disadvantage doesn't apply to violations.

Billy should know that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Advantage/disadvantage doesn't apply to violations. Billy should know that.

Jurassic Referee: Please, let's not go through this again. We tried to hash this out several years ago with no agreement, or even an agreement to disagree, between us. Long story short, if anyone here calls a three second violation every single time that an offensive player, sans exceptions, spends exactly 3.01 seconds in the lane, then they are certainly "one of those guys". Jurassic Referee: From reading your posts here, and on other forums, for several years, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are certainly not "one of those guys".

From the NFHS Rulebook: It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

Some rules involve fouls. Some rules involve violations.

If anyone here calls a ten second violation every single time that a free throw shooter takes exactly 10.01 seconds before shooting a free throw, then they, again, are certainly "one of those guys".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MelbRef

"Palming or carrying is when a player gains an advantage when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand."

Actually, I have given some thought, actually, much thought, thanks to Jurassic Referee, to removing the "gains an advantage" part of this misunderstood rule.

A1, dribbling in the backcourt, all by himself, no defender, looks to his coach for a play. While doing so, paying close attention to his coach, he absentmindedly, and accidentally, allows the ball to rest for a fraction of a second on the little finger of his dribbling hand, for one dribble, and then continues dribbling "normally". I probably won't call a violation here.

A1, dribbling in the backcourt, closely defended by B1, allows the ball to rest for a fraction of a second on his dribbling hand during a hesitation move, and in doing so, is able to gain an advantage and dribble past defender B1. I've got a violation here every time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A1, dribbling in the backcourt, all by himself, no defender, looks to his coach for a play. While doing so, paying close attention to his coach, he absentmindedly, and accidentally, allows the ball to rest for a fraction of a second on the little finger of his dribbling hand, for one dribble, and then continues dribbling "normally". I probably won't call a violation here.

What if the ball was touched with both hands while the dribbler was looking at the coach? What if the dribbler actually grabbed the ball with both hands and then dribbled again? Do you think it's also OK to pick and choose the degree to which a rule has been violated and just call some of the illegal second-dribble violations? The ones that you feel like calling?

And using the same logic, you wouldn't call a violation if the same player stepped on a boundary line in the backcourt while he's not under any pressure either, right? You do believe in consistency, right? Or do you pick and choose what violations that you think should be called under some mystical system known only to yourself?

I ain't gonna argue with you, Billy. That is why personally I don't take your most mis-understood rules too seriously though.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What if the ball was touched with both hands while the dribbler was looking at the coach?

Violation.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What if the dribbler actually grabbed the ball with both hands and then dribbled again?

Violation.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you think it's also OK to pick and choose the degree to which a rule has been violated and just call some of the illegal second-dribble violations?

Yes, as long as I, and others on my local board, have been taught to be consistent with such calls as individual officials (within the game, and from game to game), and with each other.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And using the same logic, you wouldn't call a violation if the same player stepped on a boundary line in the backcourt while he's not under any pressure either, right?

Violation. I call boundary lines by the book, as I've been taught, and as all officials on our local board, have been taught.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You do believe in consistency, right? Or do you pick and choose what violations that you think should be called under some mystical system known only to yourself?

They are not known only to me, but are taught, and understood by all competent officials on my local board.

Now, Jurassic Referee, after you have had your second helping of apple pie, would you please sit down tell us an after dinner story about the Pilgrims and the Indians, after which could you please follow up with a story about how you personally might bend some rules to account for advantage and disadvantage in calling three second lane violations and ten second free throw violations. Just exactly how do you decide to call these? Are there black areas, white areas, and gray areas, to these rules? "Do you think it's OK to pick and choose the degree to which a rule has been violated?" "You do believe in consistency, right? Or do you pick and choose what violations that you think should be called under some mystical system known only to yourself?"

Oh, and by the way, Happy Thanksgiving.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Now, Jurassic Referee, after you have had your second helping of apple pie, would you please sit down tell us an after dinner story about the Pilgrims and the Indians, after which could you please follow up with a story about how you personally might bend some rules to account for advantage and disadvantage in calling three second lane violations and ten second free throw violations. Just exactly how do you decide to call these? Are there black areas, white areas, and gray areas, to these rules? "Do you think it's OK to pick and choose the degree to which a rule has been violated?" "You do believe in consistency, right? Or do you pick and choose what violations that you think should be called under some mystical system known only to yourself?"

Naw, I try to follow what to the best of my knowledge is standard practice. And it's almost universally accepted afaik that we should use some advantage/disadvantage on 3-seconds and 10-seconds for a FT shooter. It isn't universally accepted though to the best of my knowledge, at least in my little section of hell plus surrounding sections, that we should treat other violations like palming, traveling, etc. the same way. To say some illegal second-dribbles are OK in the back court with no pressure while other illegal second dribbles(also with no pressure in the back court) should be called makes zero sense to me.

And imo that's why what we do is an art as well as a science, with the rato of art to science varying game-to-game depending on circumstances IN any particular game.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Billy. It's always a great holiday when the Dallas Cowboys are getting their l'il ol' butts schmucked.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Billy. It's always a great holiday when the Dallas Cowboys are getting their l'il ol' butts schmucked.

Now how in the world did you know that I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan? And now you want to ruin my holiday by yanking my chain? The team of Roger Staubach, Tom Landry, and Calvin Hill? How can anybody not be a fan?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The team of Jerry Jones? How can anybody not be a fan?

Upon further review.......

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The team of Roger Staubach, Tom Landry, and Calvin Hill? How can anybody not be a fan?

Well... the fact that I live in New England, and not Texas, plays a big role for me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It isn't universally accepted though to the best of my knowledge, at least in my little section of hell plus surrounding sections, that we should treat other violations like palming, traveling, etc. the same way. That's why what we do is an art as well as a science, with the ratio of art to science varying game-to-game depending on circumstances in any particular game.

Sounds reasonable to me. A reasonable, thoughtful, kind, reflective, benevolent Jurassic Referee? Man, that tryptophan must have really kicked in?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Schmucked.

What is the meaning of this word "schmucked" that both you, and Woody, from the NFHS Basketball Forum, have been using today? Is this some type of colloquial thing? Are you two from the same neighborhood in hell.

[chseagle]

Schmuck is most often used in American English as a pejorative or insult, meaning an obnoxious, contemptible person; one who is stupid, foolish, or detestable. The word is also used by many Jewish people across Europe with similar pejorative meanings. Variants of spelling and alterations include shmuck, schmo, and shmo.

Got the definition from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What is the meaning of this word "schmucked" that both you, and Woody, from the NFHS Basketball Forum, have been using today? Is this some type of colloquial thing? Are you two from the same neighborhood in hell.