Just A Twinkle In Their Father's Eye ...
 

Officiate? I'm sure that many Forum members weren't even born before 1985.

Maybe She'll Marry Me ???
 

Another gal with a really intelligent suggestion. Another keeper.

Lay off the egg nog.

OTs are an extension of the 4th period. We just keep going with AP as it alternates from the beginning of the 4th period.

Yuck. I know I'm old fashioned, I like the jump balls and hate the AP. (Maybe I like them cuz I was good at them. . . or knew what I could get away with . . .) I reluctantly accept that it's here to stay (and agree it's a good thing for lower levels, esp lower level girls where I recall almost having to ice my arm after doing 5th grade girl's games when I was in high school) -- but unbalance OT? Yuck. Double yuck. A jump at the start remains a nice ceremonial beginning to the game. And OT deserves the ceremony, too.

One of the things I hated most about GV back in the 70s was picking out which 2 out of 8 girls were in there first when they tied up the ball immediately after a jump ball. For the third time in rapid succession. Rapid might not be the right term, because everything was in slow motion. The AP arrow was the best rule change in the last 25 years, despite what Dickie V thinks about it.

Sorry but was 4 at the time.

Concerning OTs looks like there's an agreement to disagree concerning jump balls & AP.

We've gone to 18 min halves in ND and MN for V games. It takes away a quarter break but gives 2 more minutes for possible bonus FT's. So it seems like a wash. We have shot clock in V games (and some JV games). So far in 3 V games I've had 1 SC violation.

I personally like the 4 quarter system. It gives you the chance to possibly prevent some book keeping errors from coming back to bite you later in the game. It is also nice to get a breather for 60 seconds.

In the grand scheme of things, is an extra minute between the 1st and 2nd and 3rd and 4th really that big of a deal?

Speaking of speaking up the game, I do enjoy FIBA's rule for the penalty. Fouls reset after each quarter, 2 shot penalty on the 5th foul- makes for a smoother game than FED.

Also, in FIBA if you are entitled to a back court throw in in the last 2 mins of the 4th or OT and you call a time out, than you get the ball at the throw in line in your front court.

You'll never get the people in this forum to agree to those rules changes...why you ask? Cause it'd be too much like the NBA.

I do think we'll see the timeout rule happen at some point. I also wouldn't mind experimenting with resetting the penalty count each quarter.

Why should a team be allowed to move the ball up on a timeout? I know the NBE does it, but even there it really makes no sense at all.

Without a shot clock in place, this wouldn't be a good idea.
<img src="http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/twocents.gif" title="two cents">

Actually, back in the 60s, I believe the bonus reset every quarter and it was on the 5th foul. However, the first four fouls were 1 shot unless a shooting foul or an offensive foul. Not sure when the possession took place, but probably there was strategic fouling going on. Especially in the 4th qtr of close games. I remember this from watching HS games when I was in grade school, so other guys who may have been calling games back then could probably expand on it.

Something similar happens under NBA rules. The team that loses the jump gets the ball to start quarters 2 & 3 and the jump winner gets the ball for the 4th quarter.

The NBA makes no bones about this rule. They have it to benefit the offense.

I agree. But, then again, they stated time and time again that they had no plans to move the players up one space on the free throw lane.

Already in place.... ;)

Ahhh, maybe that's what you meant.

As someone has already asked... how?! I think they are pretty straight forward.... and I agree Snaq, get rid of that silly interp.

Misty Water Colored Memories, Of The Way We Were ...
 

As a player back in the olden days, I kind of remember something like that. I was too busy playing to have any real understanding of the rules. When the official tossed me the ball and said, "One shot", I just took the ball, and shot it (it usually missed). Now that you bring it up, I do remember lots of one shot free throws, definitely a lot more than in today's game.

I hope that someone who really remembers the rule (Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., Jurassic Referee, others) can follow up on this.

The NBA and FIBA have the rule, so if you really think about it, high school and college are in the minority. I think if NFHS surveyed coaches and ADs on a possible rule change to reflect the NBA and FIBA rule, they'd get a good majority approval on the change.

I haven't seen a whole lot of complaining about the NBA rules (at least those listed in this thread). It's more about the game itself and perhaps the travelling rule.

You mean the one that allows Paul Pierce to legally take 4 steps without dribbling?

In this country, more games are played under NFHS and NCAA rules than any other. And quite frankly, I don't care what they play in other countries.

I don't see this changing anytime soon. The NFHS is loathe to make drastic changes to the rules and this change would be drastic.

I know that...I just pointed that two major rules body have seen no problem with the rule.

As far as it being drastic, it'd be a very easy rule to implement in my opinion. A more drastic rule would be adding a restricted area for secondary defenders. We've seen the NBA, FIBA, and NCAA-M go to it. I don't know if NFHS will add it anytime soon. I'd much rather see a shot clock mandated.

We'll see none of those.

I'd prefer a shot clock. We had a team pull it out with 2 minutes left in the first and second quarter Thursday night. So we stood around for probably 3:30 of the game watching the clock run down.

Time will tell...I wouldn't mind seeing any of the changes. Don't mind the rules as it is now except for the lack of a mandated shot clock. Pulling it out with two minutes left and just holding it ain't playing basketball to me, but the rules makers didn't ask me. The closely guarded rule doesn't do enough because it's ridiculously easy for a competent point guard to break the 6 foot requirement.

We had the lack of action rule when I started officiating. I hope they never, ever think of bringing that back.

I don't foresee mandatory shot clocks. Schools would have to pay for the clocks as well as an operator for all games. They won't even hire 3 officials at 80% of the schools / conferences around here -- the NFHS isn't going to be mandating a shot clock anytime soon, although I would expect them to put it in as a state association adoption at some point.

If they'd do it, they'd have to mandate by a certain time period...say five to seven years. I think that would be plenty of time for schools to add a shot clock. You're right about schools having to pay the shot clock operator and that's the only issue I'd see.

I agree we'll probably see it become allowed by NFHS by state adoption...much like instant replay during state tournaments, media timeouts, etc.

Instead of dress-type polyester slacks
 

I'd prefer some type of sweat pants, a bit lighter material. Football made a great transition from the knickers to sweat type pants.

I want no parts of a shot clock in high school ball. The games will be 2 hours long with all the stoppages to correct mistakes by the operator.

Not all the table crew for Varsity Games gets paid. My wife & I do Varsity Shot Clock volunteer, nor is the Varsity scorer getting paid.

The only way I see that the table crew should get any sort of pay (cash-wise) is if they have to go through all the same training/testing that the floor officials have to. However I don't see that becoming mandatory any time soon.

The games here are averaging about 75 minutes with both the boys & girls having a shot clock.

All it takes is knowledge of the rules involved & an attentive eye.

There will be growing pains at first, but it seems like the states that do have the shot clock are doing just fine. As much as I don't want a two hour long high school game, I rather have that then a game where the ball is held for two minutes with no action. That to me ain't basketball.

I think it is largely the cost. I don't know what the cost is, but the upfront cost would be balked at by many administrators in times of shrinking budgets. I did a few games at Disney this summer that used the shot cock, and it was relatively easy to make the transition as an official. Except for a few times, I had a count going in the backcourt. Phasing in the cost of uniforms when white was mandated and giving 3 years to budget for them likely was less of a cost than the shot clocks would be.

From what I noticed here when the boys got the shot clock, the growing pains were there but few & far between. Of course, we already had the girls' shot clock.

Ah...they are NOT "sweat type pants."

They're black slacks. Other than a white stripe outside of each leg, belt loops, and being a little warmer, they're much different than basketball slacks. In fact, they are 95% polyester.

It takes TWO teams to play that game.

Of course. And I don't get why the superior team, up 9, wouldn't put some pressure on, but they don't pay me to coach.

That's how I feel.

I'm in one of the forty-something states that doesn't have a shot clock in high school hoops, though fans cry for it every so often. I'm against the idea, mostly because I fear the problems that will go with it -- incorrect resets, et al -- particularly in sub-varsity games.

Others may feel "that's not basketball," but if you want the ball, go after it.

I have one of those type games once every 2 or 3 years. I just don't think it happens often enough to necessitate a rule change.

I do think it would hurt teams that aren't very good. I can't imagine how bad it would be for some of the 1A girls games we see around here.

I wouldn't mind a shot clock for high school, but it would be a chore to get competent operators at each school, plus it would make the bad games that much worse. I can't imagine a team that already can't hold on to the ball chucking up bad shots when they don't want to. There are some games when I would rather see both teams in a zone with little action. The aformentioned cost would be prohibitive as well.

I like the idea of resetting the team foul totals after each quarter and going to two shots on the 5th foul of the quarter. It would help the pace and flow of the game.

This is the FIBA rule and it rocks!

FIBA also has a shot clock, too, which I really like.

The pace of the games is great.

Yep. If teams can recruit / draft, then the shot clock makes some sense.

If you have to play with whatever kids are in your district, then you should be able to do what it takes to keep the game close / give your team the best chance to win. And, if that's playing for a low-scoring game, so be it.

I'd rather see a rule to the effect that, if a team pulls the ball out, and if the other team let's them, the coaches must get together and agree on a time put on the clock. Adjust the clock down, and re-start. No sense just standing around while the clock goes down from 6:00 to 1:00. If both teams agree, then put 1:00 on the clock and go.

(and, yes, I know there's the rule that the game can be shortened if both coaches and the R agree. So, what I think we really need is a process / mechanic to make this happen, rather than a rules change.)

My thoughts precisely.

I'd be happy to make this change (5 FTs per quarter bonus). I'd even do the NBE 2-fouls-in-the-last-2-minutes.

The cost issue has nothing to do with the people running it and everything to do with the purchase and installation of the equipment itself.

In WI, it's the cost of the people that the ADs mention first. The schools probably could get the cost of the shot clocks paid for by sponsors, as they do with the new scoreboards that appears at schools pretty often. But around here, all table staff is paid.

Personally, I don't see the need. My game last week happens maybe once per season. If both teams are happy to let the clock run down, who am I to argue? Sure, I'm bored by it and the fans are bored by it, but I'm just the official on the court.

Not every district can come up with the sponsors to pay for a shot clock; although giving them three to five years to do it would help. There are some districts that simply don't have the necessary patronage. They're lucky to get the local businesses (all of them) to pitch in every twenty years to get a scoreboard.

It's one thing with the uniforms; they replace those anyway so the money is already budgeted. The lead time was given so the schools wouldn't have to spend extra money by replacing uniforms ahead of schedule.

I agree with you, too, that I don't see the need. To me, it's like all the effort at fixing the "problem" of extra fouls late in the game.

The fix for this is "making free throws."

I did call an intentional last week, though, my first one in two years. Two handed push in the back on a late break, similar to the one in the college game a week or so ago. Too many people think that because the player is trying to foul, it's intentional -- and they just don't get the spirit and intent of what the rule is trying to prevent.

Or, they think that fouling is "part of the game" (cringe), and calling an intentional is ruining that part of that game.

Intentional Fouls ...
 

Be careful here bainsey. Forum members who are not officials may misunderstand you. According to the NFHS, fouling is part of the game:

NFHS 2006-07 Point of Emphasis Intentional Fouls: "Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game"

NFHS 2005-06 Point of Emphasis Intentional Fouls: Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped."

Agree. Stoopid fans. Stoopid coaches. Stoopid players.

Fair enough, Billy. How about, in their eyes, "fouling without making any effort to go for the ball is part of the game?"

I think that all games above mini or maybe middle school depending on the ages of kids involved should have shot clocks. As an official it is a hassle and something you have to keep in mind, but as an ambassador of the sport of basketball I think anything that helps improve the skill of all the players/coaches involved it is a must:

the LLaBB: HOW THE SHOT CLOCK IMPROVES PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

Most "fans" don't have a clue about the difference between a common foul and intentional foul.....along with a whole bunch of other rules we discussed here many times.

As BillyMac said, fouling is an accepted part of late game strategy. IMHO, it is the responsibility of the officials to make sure it doesn't get out of hand, and for that to happen we need to do two things:
1. Be aware of the situation and when you know they're trying to foul, call the foul immediately, even something that we might normally pass on - don't wait and let the contact escalate.
2. Don't hesitate to call the intentional foul when it occurs - make it clear that there is a right way and wrong way to implement this strategy, and the officials are going to enforce it.

If we, as officials, are uniformly consistent on this, the coaches will be forced to teach their players the right way if they want to use this strategy, and it won't be an issue.

-----

On the subject of shot clocks, I believe that cost is a factor. Schools all over this region are facing huge budget shortfalls and having to make cuts. Another is the ability to get enough table crew together to run them for early games, particularly the sub-varsity ones. Some schools have trouble getting just a scorekeeper and game clock operator. I don't think it's much of an issue for the officials. The End of the Trail tournaments here use them along with a modified version of NCAAW rules, and I don't know any officials that have had a problem making the adjustments.

It is part of the game. The NFHS has said so. If the players foul in the right way, whether they intend to foul or not, it doesn't matter.

An intentional foul should pretty much call itself and the official should be prepared to step up and make the call when it happens.

Bingo. If a team WANTS a foul, GIVE them the foul. I've seen official pass, pass, pass, and then the defense says, "That's not a foul? HERE'S a foul." And then all hell breaks loose.

Let Me Introduce Myself, Mac, BillyMac ...
 

Now you know one, me. Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we use shot clocks only for prep schools, boys and girls, only for varsity games (no freshman (thirds) or junior varsity). I'm a 100% NFHS official, I know more about rocket science, and brain surgery, than I do about NCAA rules.

I only see a shot clock about once, or twice, each season. I always hope that my partner is an NCAA trained official, and/or that the table is well trained in shot clock rules, and interpretations.

I kind of know the rules, our interpreter provides a shot clock rule sheet for us. My partner and I go over this sheet during our pregame, but this nothing like experience to really understand shot clock rules, and interpretations. It's tough to get this experience working only a few shot clock games each season.

In the words of the Immortal Dave, when explaining a rule interp to a coach, "Hey, it's not rocket surgery". :D

Now the good news - Dave has come back to our local kids rec league this year. I can't wait to get some games with him. He left us for about four years, but couldn't resist our game fee increase this season, especially since he lives right in town here.

I understand your point, Rich, but isn't it wrong to reward an offending team for an illegal act?

How are they being rewarded? The opponent is sent to the FT line with a chance to score.

+1

But I Didn't Call That Back In The First Period ...
 

Stoopid rookie officials.

...with the clock stopped.

It's what we play in our state....it's great. Two less times that you have to deal with end of quarter, dead ball/bench personnel T's and A/P throw-in situations.

This article, written by a clearly intelligent official, describes my thoughts on the subject quite well. I'm glad the person who posted this to their officiating website stole it, cause I'm not sure I would've found it otherwise:

http://www.gpboa.org/Articles/Watching%20Works.pdf

Until this is something that the NFHS/NCAA comes out and specifically says they want to change, I don't see the point of anyone, especially officials, tilting at windmills.

I agree, but there are limits. I've seen a player literally reach out and grab his opponent's jersey with 2 fingers, then look at me expectantly. That's intentional or nothing, usually nothing.

If it's the ball carrier, I'm grabbing the foul and going to the other end to shoot the free throws. I'm not picky when it comes to teams trying to foul a player with the ball at the end of the game.

Grabbing the shirt in the manner described above (no exaggeration, no kidding)
is not the right way, in my opinion.

Pulling the jersey is a no brainer - INT foul.

And? The clock is always stopped when we shoot FTs, not just at the end of the game. They're willing to commit a foul and allow the opponent an opportunity to score in exchange for an opportunity to stop the clock.
It's a strategy, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess we shouldn't recognize a excessive timeout in such a situation. After all, it's a technical foul and therefore, "illegal."

While I am more inclined to call a foul on contact that is right along the line between incidental and illegal, I'm not going to reward sloppy taps with foul calls either if there's no advantage.

Particularly if the offense is trying to avoid being fouled.

OTOH, if the offense is content to allow the foul, I'm likely to call first contact.

That's not a very strong analogy, IMO, Ref.

For me, it comes down to advantageous contact. If the contact is trifling, and the offense can work through it (i.e. hand checking an opponent that's already passed you), then I believe you're rewarding the defense by stopping the clock, even if they're going to the line. If the defense is making an obvious play for the ball, then I believe the foul to be "earned." Intentional fouls are exactly as others have described.

Simply put, I don't believe in blowing the whistle just because the defense wants you to. I say, pursue the ball, and earn the foul. If contact becomes excessive, then penalize accordingly by crossing those arms.

No, actually your original idea and this idea are very poor.

So you're telling me the only time you ever call a foul is when the defender is going for the ball? :rolleyes:

The FED does not require that the ball be played in order to have a foul or not have an intentional foul. Fouls are also committed because the defender is playing the PLAYER.

Call the first foul and then you won't have "excessive contact. Hopefully, as you gain experience, you'll come to understand this better. If you're smart, you will.

Yup. Called one in the season opener last year. The coach asked why & I told him. The coach said he accidentally got his hand caught. I am sure my eyes rolled a 360 on that one, but I'm not sure.

And if it is intentional, there will be no advantage. It does not have to be excessive to be intentional. Especially if the lead is around 5 or 6 points, players sometimes get to the point of realizing they will not win and get in a hard foul. Getting that crap early gets you to the point where the offensive team holds the ball on his hip for the final 10 seconds much sooner.

How so? I'd like some facts behind your opinion, sir.

Of course not.

I understand your preventive officiating point of view, and I respect your experience, but I have never cared for the so-called "strategy" of fouling to stop the clock, and I believe if you're going to foul, at least you can try to steal the ball. (Such attempted steals are very seldom excessive.) Otherwise, I don't believe you deserve the advantage of a stopped clock, and as always, we need to be concerned about advantage/disadvantage.

I don't like the strategy of a coach pressing when he is ahead 40 points in the 4th quarter. But if it is within the rules I cannot stop him or her from continuing. And what if the offensive team has good FT shooters? Or if a defender is spending his fifth foul and he is the best ball handler for them? Just because you do not LIKE something, doesn't mean you ignore it if it is illegal [a foul] or step in and stop something [a press] that you do NOT like.

1. This shouldn't matter. We're not supposed to insert our own philosophies into the game. I don't like coaches pressing at the end of the game with a big lead, but I'm not so presumptuous to assume I can make calls against the rules to promote my philosophy. If the defense creates an advantage with their contact, call the damned foul. Whether you believe they deserve the advantage or not is irrelevant; the freaking NFHS rules committee has stated that this strategy is part of the game.

Deja vu, man.

Hah! The kids are playing WII and it took me a bit longer to write that. :D

All I know is the "Be late. Be needed. Be right." philosophy might apply in some of those late game situations...

Well, unfortunately for you, the NFHS disagrees with you.

2006-07 NFHS Points of Emphasis
Intentional Fouls
"Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling."

Looks like double whistles to me. Snaqs and 26 need to confer. :D (with BBR as the third man).

Very well, then. You have the facts (particularly BBR with the P.O.E. citation).

However, once again, I'm not talking about obvious advantageous contact. That should always be called, regardless of the time, and called intentional when necessary. Similarly, trifling contact is often ruled incidental throughout the game.

Never did I say to swallow your whistle. I'm talking about the tap on the back or arm when the dribbler has clearly passed the defender, and has an easy path toward his desired direction. Such contact is typically passed upon, as it didn't create a clear advantage.

If your message is "let the defense stop the clock by calling everything," aren't we abandoning the very advantage/disadvatange judgment we need to do our jobs effectively?

I'm not abandoning that entirely. I am mindful, though, that the defense is trying to foul in that situation. Therefore, if a player comes up and "reaches in" and contacts the ball handler, yes, I am calling that a bit differently than the rest of the game. I'm calling that foul. If I don't, that defender will foul a bit harder assuming that I didn't see the original foul attempt. Then the defender will knock the ball handler down.

I'm not saying I'll blow the whistle when the defender gets within a foot of the player, but I know the game situation and I'm mindful that the defense is going to attempt to foul quickly. My goal is to make sure that when the contact happens to get the foul and stop any possible escalation.

+1

Yup. Game management.

+1

I'm not answering for Rich, but I won't call the slap on the wrist if the dribbler is in the process of beating a defender who has essentially stopped playing defense in order to foul. If, however, the offense is just standing there waiting to be fouled, I'm not waiting for the arm to come off before calling a foul.

Spin it all you want, no one has said that. :o

You've had several veteran officials explain to you how to manage this point in the game. It's about more than just blowing the whistle. My wife can blow a whistle. You'd be wise to try and pick up something here, rather than arguing about it.

+1

That's an excellent example of what I mean.

Neither spinning nor arguing, sir. Merely questioning, and I took plenty. I think we're on the same page more than it may appear.

Good discussion...
 

Snaqs: "Particularly if the offense is trying to avoid being fouled."

Had one of these earlier this year and the defensive coach was whining about not getting the quick whistle to stop the clock.

Me: Coach, he didn't foul him the first time. He missed.
Coach: Yeah, my kids just aren't very aggressive.

Not sure about his definition... I think we had already called about 25 fouls on his squad. :)

Doesn't mean we're fighting, dude. It's called arguing a point and we do it all the time here.

And yes, you did spin it. No one has advocated calling "the tap on the back or arm when the dribbler has clearly passed the defender," or "let the defense stop the clock by calling everything."

We advocate that:

1 - The NFHS, NCAA, FIBA, and the NBA all recognize that strategic fouling is part of the game of basketball.

2- When you know the defense is trying to commit a strategic foul, call the first significant contact so that the contact doesn't escalate.

Finally, don't call me sir. :)

(Not talking to you, but just as good a place as any to jump in....)

Of course that's what I meant, too. I'm not calling that tap with the ball handler past the defender at *any* point of the game and certainly not here, either.

But there are fouls near the end of the game where, had they happened earlier, I would've passed and hesitated to see if the ball handler could play through the contact. Big difference is that early in the game, the defender is trying to avoid picking up the foul and will immediately back off if he's close to getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Late in the game, the contact will escalate (normally) until we call the foul. That first bump, well, I see no reason to see if A can play through it. Because if I do, the next contact could lead to injury, retaliation, or worse.

If we have a timeout, we'll be getting together and saying, "They're going to be trying to foul. Let's get the first one."

Regarding intentional fouls -- I see no reason to be a pioneer. I call them when the game and the NFHS expects them to be called.

Great discussion folks, really enjoying this one.

Rich, I called one last year in a middle school game when a team was fouling late in the game. The player grabbed his opponent and bear hugged him big time. Easy intentional in my view but boy did the fouling team's coach come unglued on that one. Expected I suppose but my partner also told me in no uncertain terms that was a bad call. :rolleyes:

You really have to take middle school coaches and partners with a grain of salt.

The best part of working varsity ball is that you rarely see that level of stupidity from players and when you do, the coach will usually be on the player, not you.

I know it's obnoxious to quote myself, but I wanted to add one thing -- part of the equation of whether I call the foul here is whether a defender is in position to escalate the situation. If it's one defender who "swings and almost misses" and there's nobody anywhere near the ball as the guard goes by, I see no reason to have a different standard. But what normally happens is (a) the guard lets the foul happen or (b) there's another defender right there who will follow-up the no call with a harder foul. That's when I'm jumping in.

I've seen teams come back in games where the officials try to let the clock run and pass on legitimate fouls only to see B steal the ball and go the other way. That's one thing I try to make sure never happens.

And SOME middle school partners. :o

I certainly hear you on that one. Most of the JV and even Sophomore games I've worked have been worlds better than the Jr High and Freshman games, in terms of both the quality of the partners and the coaches. No big surprise there, I realize.

Rule
 

Allowing coaches to be on the bench;)

This is exactly what I was referring to in my post several pages back.

As 26 Year Gap commented, it's game management.
..................
Bainsey,

One of our main responsibilities as officials is to keep the game under control while at the same time not controlling the game. Sounds convoluted I know, but what it means is that we keep the game within the rules and guidelines set down by NFHS or whatever governing body. Beyond that, it's up to the players to decide the outcome as long as they stay within those limits. While we may not like a particular strategy they employ, it's strictly none of our business as long as it stays within those limits.

As the POE cited by BBR points out, this is an recognized strategy by NFHS. Bottom line is that if the defense wants to foul, they're going to foul. It's our job to recognize that situation and call the first legitimate contact to keep it from escalating. What Rich said above and others have seconded is, IMHO, the best way to handle this.

Thanks, Tim. Well said.

I had a similar one at a similar level some time ago. I report the INT, look at the coach for his question, and with a strong glare, he states, "You DON'T make that call at the end of a game!"

Clearly, the younger coach was operating from a myth. All we can do is battle these myths by doing what's right.

If you say so, but I find it interesting that request comes from the Carolinas, where I spent my teen years and learned to be respectful like that.