The joys of my evening

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Now you sound like a coach. You don't like the way things are going so you resort to making a snide personal remark. Classy.

Just as classy as using another thread and then using my remarks out of context.

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

What's good for the goose and all that....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Just as classy as using another thread and then using my remarks out of context.

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

What's good for the goose and all that....

Agreed.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

There's a huge difference. The coach in question saw the plays. We often say to ourselves, "If he couldn't see the difference, there's no way I can explain it."

Here, nobody saw the play in question. If you want something understood, you have no choice but to explain. We had two plays (one with video, one without) where an airborne shooter was knocked to the floor. One you said was not a foul. The other you not only said was a foul, you said it was absurd not to protect the airborne shooter to the floor. I asked what the difference was. I thought I was asking a legitimate question, rather than prolonging a previous argument.......this time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Here, nobody saw the play in question. If you want something understood, you have no choice but to explain. We had two plays (one with video, one without) where an airborne shooter was knocked to the floor. One you said was not a foul. The other you not only said it was a foul, you said it was absurd not to protect the airborne shooter to the floor. I asked what the difference was. I thought I was asking a legitimate question, rather than prolonging a previous argument.......this time.

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot. Unless I missed something, where contact takes place first without any contact with the ball that is totally different. And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul. Unless you have never worked a boy's game, shooters get knocked to the floor all the time. That does not mean it was a foul or that the defender did anything wrong or illegal. There are times when a shooter causes all the contact and fall the floor. Now if you are one of those officials that call everything in the benefit of the shooter no matter what, then that is why we have POEs every year talking about why we should not call fouls on the defense and we must review things like LGP and even Verticality. Basketball players do fall and nothing should be called sometimes. Nowhere does it say every time a shooter falls there must be a foul or that the defender did something illegal. But again you keep asking as if those rules are to only protect the shooter from falling.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot.

That's what I read also. In the first play, the explanation as I understand it, was that the contact was incidental to a block which was (I agreed) clean on top. The contact, which came after the block, did not affect the shot, so therefore was not a foul. But in the second play, there is a missed block attempt. The shooter is subsequently contacted on his way down and is also knocked to the floor. Like the first play, the shot was not affected. Why is the second play a foul while the first is not?

And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul.

I believe what I said was that when a defender who is actively making a play knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, never say always, but this is pretty much gonna be a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's what I read also. In the first play, the explanation as I understand it, was that the contact was incidental to a block which was (I agreed) clean on top. The contact, which came after the block, did not affect the shot, so therefore was not a foul. But in the second play, there is a missed block attempt. The shooter is subsequently contacted on his way down and is also knocked to the floor. Like the first play, the shot was not affected. Why is the second play a foul while the first is not?

All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul. I know I do not call fouls on screens that are legally set and the player being screened falls to the ground hard as a result. So why is this play so hard to understand. One play had a clean block (which means they got to the ball first and legally) and the other the player made contact, then made the block. Again, I am not going to continue to argue this with you, but just will say that if you call that in the places I work, you will not be working very long. And those that usually call the game like this, do not work with a lot of tall or athletic players. And I almost never see an experienced official call these plays fouls but when I read this board someone like you claims we have to call a foul on these "becasue the shooter got knocked to the floor." Like there are never shooters that fall to the floor and we have never seen a foul not called.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I believe what I said was that when a defender who is actively making a play knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, never say always, but this is pretty much gonna be a foul.

Well I do not have to work with you, so call what you like.

Peace

[Rob1968]

J Rut
QUOTE:All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul.

Please, help me understand your philosophy. When I read 4-27-2, and 4-27-3, neither seems to fit a scenario in which the contact, "even though it may be severe" would be caused by a defender trying to block a shot; or if that contact appears to be caused by only one of the the players involved - "...when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements..." "...contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."
It does seem that contact which causes an airbourne opponent to be unable to maintain balance, upon returning to the floor more fits a description of illegal contact.
(I do a lot of mentoring of newer/younger officials in my area, and am always looking for the philosophy/wording that will best help them to understand a valid "no-call".)
Thanks in advance.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

J Rut
QUOTE:All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul.

Please, help me understand your philosophy. When I read 4-27-2, and 4-27-3, neither seems to fit a scenario in which the contact, "even though it may be severe" would be caused by a defender trying to block a shot; or if that contact appears to be caused by only one of the the players involved - "...when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements..." "...contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."
It does seem that contact which causes an airbourne opponent to be unable to maintain balance, upon returning to the floor more fits a description of illegal contact.
(I do a lot of mentoring of newer/younger officials in my area, and am always looking for the philosophy/wording that will best help them to understand a valid "no-call".)
Thanks in advance.

Well if someone is there shot is blocked (first) I do not consider a defender to have much to do with preventing the shooter from movement illegally.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

J Rut
QUOTE:All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul.

Please, help me understand your philosophy. When I read 4-27-2, and 4-27-3, neither seems to fit a scenario in which the contact, "even though it may be severe" would be caused by a defender trying to block a shot; or if that contact appears to be caused by only one of the the players involved - "...when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements..." "...contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."
It does seem that contact which causes an airbourne opponent to be unable to maintain balance, upon returning to the floor more fits a description of illegal contact.
(I do a lot of mentoring of newer/younger officials in my area, and am always looking for the philosophy/wording that will best help them to understand a valid "no-call".)
Thanks in advance.

Like Jeff, all I can say is that the philosophy on higher level boys basketball is that if the player clearly got all ball going up we're going to allow some contact on the way down. This doesn't mean we're going to allow a player to land on top of another player, but I think the play in question doesn't put the offensive player at a disadvantage subsequent to the block. The ball's heading out of bounds clearly and immediately and the play dictates (to me, anyway) that this simply be called an out of bounds violation and we move on.

Others that I respect disagree with this. That's OK. JAR is the only one trying to bring another play into question. I can easily explain one over the other, but I'm not sure it's really necessary:

(1) The girl (and the first play wouldn't happen in a girls game) swung and missed. I think that JAR sarcastically compared this to a roughing the kicker call in football and I actually liked the comparison. Getting the ball clean does make a difference to me. It does make me weigh the contact differently - in context.

(2) The ball goes immediately out of bounds in the first play. That also matters, IMO. There's no way anyone can be put at a rebounding disadvantage by a little contact subsequent to the shot. And yes, at that level and even at a good HS boys level, that's a little contact. Again, I'd have to put it in context with everything else that's happening in a game. It's one helluva athletic play to go up and get that ball and I'm not going to take that away because the shooter gets bumped, loses his balance, and falls to the ground, *especially* when the ball is immediately directed out of bounds..

(3) It's expected that in high level boys/mens games that the contact meter be dialed down a bit, at least where I work. On a block like that (first play, other thread), nobody would blink an eye at the subsequent contact. Those that would reflexively call that a foul without at least weighing all the other factors probably call a lot more fouls than is expected at that level. Again, I have great respect for those who call that a foul, but at least they are weighing the block against the contact and determining that there's too much contact there. I can live with that -- officials can disagree on a play but one thing I'm never going to do as an official is try to compare one play to another and try to use an official's judgment or words on an IBB to trip him up, like JAR did.

(4) The Yahoo link is now broken for the original play, but it's here now: YouTube - HD - Sasha Pavlovic block on Sebastian Telfair vs. Timberwolves - 2/7/11

[Rob1968]

J Rut and Rich,
Thank you for your input. We're into our state play-offs, and will soon be doing spring ball, and then our summer camps. Your input is greatly appreciated, as are many of the threads on this site.
Much of my enjoyment in officiating is through helping newer officials realize their potential, and move up in their assignments. Incidental contact, no-call philosophy, are areas where the best officials shine. Younger, inexperienced officials are often confused by what they see not being called. And unless an official gets to a point of applying valid principles in such plays, their progress will be stymied.
Thanks, agasin.

[26 Year Gap]

This is definitely an area I can focus on as the AAU season approaches. That & held ball 'stuffs' are two areas I can definitely work on to improve. Thanks.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

(3) It's expected that in high level boys/mens games that the contact meter be dialed down a bit, at least where I work. On a block like that (first play, other thread), nobody would blink an eye at the subsequent contact. Those that would reflexively call that a foul without at least weighing all the other factors probably call a lot more fouls than is expected at that level. Again, I have great respect for those who call that a foul, but at least they are weighing the block against the contact and determining that there's too much contact there. I can live with that -- officials can disagree on a play but one thing I'm never going to do as an official is try to compare one play to another and try to use an official's judgment or words on an IBB to trip him up, like JAR did.

Comparing one play to another is only natural as one tries to achieve consistency. Having said that, the original account made no mention of the fact that it was a girls game. That does change a lot. It is a different game.
Having said that, I think protecting the airborne shooter to the floor applies strongly at all levels.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Comparing one play to another is only natural as one tries to achieve consistency. Having said that, the original account made no mention of the fact that it was a girls game. That does change a lot. It is a different game.
Having said that, I think protecting the airborne shooter to the floor applies strongly at all levels.

For me, if I ever worked a girls game that featured this level of athleticism, I'd call it the same way. It's just that in most cases advantage/disadvantage comes with less contact.

Quite frankly, the small school rural boys games are called differently than the big city schools because of the differences in style of play and athleticism. A few years ago there was a big controversy when the big school coach called out the assignment of rural officials in a state playoff game where almost all contact was called a foul. The comments were decried by many, but to be completely honest, I understood where the coach was coming from.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Quite frankly, the small school rural boys games are called differently than the big city schools because of the differences in style of play and athleticism. A few years ago there was a big controversy when the big school coach called out the assignment of rural officials in a state playoff game where almost all contact was called a foul. The comments were decried by many, but to be completely honest, I understood where the coach was coming from.

Without a doubt, this comes into play, on fouls and violations as well. My association is the rural association in the above equation, and most of our schools are smaller schools. In one of the nights I had this year involving the bigger schools, we called very obvious (to me) traveling on one of the point guards in the girls game probably at least 5 times. I kind of felt bad for her, because she apparently had been allowed to make the same move all year. But, hey, after the 2nd or 3rd call, a player must sometimes make an adjustment.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

For me, if I ever worked a girls game that featured this level of athleticism, I'd call it the same way. It's just that in most cases advantage/disadvantage comes with less contact.

Quite frankly, the small school rural boys games are called differently than the big city schools because of the differences in style of play and athleticism. A few years ago there was a big controversy when the big school coach called out the assignment of rural officials in a state playoff game where almost all contact was called a foul. The comments were decried by many, but to be completely honest, I understood where the coach was coming from.

And this is why I like the fact for the most part our state separates the officials for the post season accordingly based on what they normally work. Then again you once in a while get officials working a talented player and do not know how to officiate that player who happens to be a D1 player playing with mostly smaller schools. Not always a good thing.

Peace