The whole idea of putting stripes on us was so the players would know who was playing and who was officiating. Striped shirts were designed to contast with the players' shirts, no matter what color they wore.

And if it weren't for Patrick Ewing, we'd be the only ones on the court with short-sleeved shirts.

I vote for those bright fluorescent green nylon safety vests.:D

AKA Designed to be seen/noticed

However why the idea of the grey shirts?

At least NFHS/NCAA have the officials' attire right. The NBE Officials' attire, to me, is ugly.

So every member of the table crew has to be licensed to be Traffic Control Officers?

That's not far from normal game day attire for me right now, as RookieDude knows.

Sooner or later, will be getting a new shirt for game days.

Or.......
 

Works for me - they certainly would be visible! :D:D

That's how we do it in one of the chapters I belong to. I have no idea why either but I suspect we are transitioning to all grey for every level.

So the table would be a distraction?

I thought all attention was supposed to be towards the players & officials on the court?

Welpe it was meant as a joke as a way to distinguish who's a veteran official & who's a 1st/2nd year official (rookie).

And no one got the joke because it's not just 1st/2nd year officials doing JV games.

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in on late-game fouling.

The one major thing missed in the discussion is that for one year the Fed did change its mind about the strategy. We had the PoE in the early '00s that included the famous any foul after the coach says "Foul 'em" is intentional line. That experiment lasted one year and the PoEs given earlier returned things to their normal state.

Personally, I find the fouling strategy at best poorly conceived and at worst unsportsmanlike. But, fortunately, no one gave me the job of making the rules. What I don't understand is why they don't try to steal the ball instead of just fouling.

My personal approach when the defense is attempting to foul late in the game is to call any contact when the offense is not trying to avoid it. When the offense is trying to avoid being fouled, it has to actually be a foul, i.e. the offensive player must be put at a disadvantage.

I think Rich is right that borderline contact should be favored for a foul in this situation for player safety, but at the same time we must be careful not to but the offensive team at a disadvantage by calling fouls that aren't there.

And yes, the defensive team is getting an advantage by fouling or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

My preferred solution is a change in the rules that would make the strategy less likely to work for the defense. Something is wrong with the rules when the best chance to win is to intentionally break the rules. I think the idea of a triple bonus floated earlier has some merit.

It's impossible to tell the difference between your lame jokes and your lame posts.

Life imitates posts again.

Last night, the home team (state tourney team last year and winners of 2 state titles the past 4 years) went into a four corner stall with a 3 point lead at the end of the game while the visiting team (#1 in the state and defending state champions) tried desperately to foul. It took almost a minute for the foul as the team with the ball kept passing it around and the defense got there a bit late. I ignored all the attempted fouls on players that didn't have the ball anymore -- I was certainly watching for intentional or flagrant contact, but that's what it was going to take once the ball was out of the picture.

Home team held on and won by 5 after hitting 2 FTs with 1.8 seconds left. Great game.

Regardless, it is reality here.

Eggsxactly.