The joys of my evening

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is nothing in the rules that says a player knocked to the floor is a foul either.

You may want to check out NFHS case book play 4.19.3SitB then. It's pretty explicit.

4.19.3SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. as A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds.
RULING: An intentional foul should be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball.

The FED is telling us:
1) it doesn't matter if the defender got a hand on the ball
2) it's always a judgment call but if the shooter is whacked to the floor and OOB, not only should it be a foul but it should be an intentional foul for excessive contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You may want to check out NFHS case book play 4.19.3SitB then. It's pretty explicit.

4.19.3SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. as A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds.
RULING: An intentional foul should be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball.

The FED is telling us:
1) it doesn't matter if the defender got a hand on the ball
2) it's always a judgment call but if the shooter is whacked to the floor and OOB, not only should it be a foul but it should be an intentional foul for excessive contact.

That assumes that all contact puts the player to the floor. A player going to the basket will fall and does all the time with contact. This is why it is a judgment call. Good for the NF, but that does not mean it it going to change how I and others view this play.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That assumes that all contact puts the player to the floor.

No it doesn't. I believe the quote is, "...and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds." Iow, the defender initiated the contact and as a result of the contact, A1 went to the floor. This case play seems to contradict the apparent "expectation" in some games that as long as the shot was blocked cleanly, the contact afterwards could be ignored.

No one has argued about a small guard bouncing off a large post player who has LGP, or a player running into well-set screen and getting creamed. We all agree incidental contact can be severe, and we all agree a player going to the floor does not mean a foul occurred.

You bring up handchecking in a previous post, and that actually is a point I wanted to make. You mentioned that handchecking was not called for years, with the expectation that as long as the player can "play through it", it was not going to be called a foul. The NFHS has clearly stated in recent POE's that officials have not been calling handchecking as often as they should. Perhaps in higher level boys' games, the expectation was/is that handchecking is a cheap foul and should not be called, where the rules committee has repeatedly said it needs to be called more often. Isn't this the same issue we have with the blocked shot and contact afterwards? There is an "expectation" in certain games that certain calls are made or not made, even though they may be in direct contradiction to the rules.

Maybe you're not understanding my questions - I'm not here necessarily to say one way is right and the other wrong. I know there are gray areas. But how do you tell a smaller school official what would be a foul in their game would not be a foul in a large-school game? Why is that? Yes, the "expectation" is different, but should we as officials give in to that expectation? If so, should we also give in to the expectation that a high dribble is somehow a violation? Everyone wants is called, and no one complains when it is. Same thing?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No it doesn't. I believe the quote is, "...and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds." Iow, the defender initiated the contact and as a result of the contact, A1 went to the floor. This case play seems to contradict the apparent "expectation" in some games that as long as the shot was blocked cleanly, the contact afterwards could be ignored.

I need a break from fighting with SQL Server.

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I need a break from fighting with SQL Server.

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

Ok, if it comes down to a simple disagreement as to your judgement on the level of contact vs. someone else's, or who is responsible for initiating contact, I can probably live with that. I guess I was reacting to some of the qualifications made to justify the no-call, such as "the blocked ball went directly OOB, so the shooter wasn't really put at a disadvantage". Are you saying if the ball did not go OOB, would it have been a foul?

I can even agree somewhat with ignoring some contact if the block was clean to begin with, but at some point if the contact puts the shooter on the ground, isn't that an advantage, no matter where the ball went? If you tell me in the video the shooter was off-balance, and they were just as responsible for the contact as the defender, then I don't see an issue here, and maybe I'm getting all worked up over nothing?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

In this particular quote the word forcefully is used to specify that this is not only a foul, but can in this circumstance ("clean block" up top) be called intentional if the contact is excessive. Following this line of reasoning, any (illegal) contact which (gently?) knocks the airborne shooter to the floor will usually be regarded as a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No it doesn't. I believe the quote is, "...and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds." Iow, the defender initiated the contact and as a result of the contact, A1 went to the floor. This case play seems to contradict the apparent "expectation" in some games that as long as the shot was blocked cleanly, the contact afterwards could be ignored.

I am not talking about the case play in question. I am talking about the people that want to find a situation that means a player that goes to the floor is a foul. I see that all the time and it is not called (and no one goes crazy). Just like I see an airborne shooter go hard into a defender and the defender does not move and we do not see a PC foul either. And that is not what the rules suggest, but it is not called that way for sure.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No one has argued about a small guard bouncing off a large post player who has LGP, or a player running into well-set screen and getting creamed. We all agree incidental contact can be severe, and we all agree a player going to the floor does not mean a foul occurred.

LGP is not the only way we determine a foul. If a dribbler pushes off on a defender and displaces that defender, I do not care whether they are in LGP at the time of the contact. That is a guide to let us call a foul when contact takes place, but does not apply across the board on all kinds of plays or absolve the ball handler of being the cause of contact.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You bring up handchecking in a previous post, and that actually is a point I wanted to make. You mentioned that handchecking was not called for years, with the expectation that as long as the player can "play through it", it was not going to be called a foul. The NFHS has clearly stated in recent POE's that officials have not been calling handchecking as often as they should. Perhaps in higher level boys' games, the expectation was/is that handchecking is a cheap foul and should not be called, where the rules committee has repeatedly said it needs to be called more often. Isn't this the same issue we have with the blocked shot and contact afterwards? There is an "expectation" in certain games that certain calls are made or not made, even though they may be in direct contradiction to the rules.

And I still call hand-checking when there is displacement and a player is put at a disadvantage. I do not call hand-checking and never will for a defender simply putting their hand on the ball handler. Oh, and the POEs almost never talk about the other rules that apply with incidental contact, but never change the rules to those rules. Actually I use the RSBQ philosophy to call hand-checking and anytime a player puts their hand on the dribbler that will get special attention, but not an automatic every time that action happens. And for the record I call a lot of hand-checking fouls as I use the RSBQ philosophy.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Maybe you're not understanding my questions - I'm not here necessarily to say one way is right and the other wrong. I know there are gray areas. But how do you tell a smaller school official what would be a foul in their game would not be a foul in a large-school game? Why is that? Yes, the "expectation" is different, but should we as officials give in to that expectation? If so, should we also give in to the expectation that a high dribble is somehow a violation? Everyone wants is called, and no one complains when it is. Same thing?

I do not think you understand my point either. I am not saying that I am not going to assume players that come together it is the fault of the defense. I am going to give the defense a lot of leeway on these plays as an offensive player is and can be out of control in these situations. And bigger players tend to knock over smaller players all the time and yes that is going to be a factor to me. And to equate a complete misunderstood rule to a philosophy to help cause consistency in a call is not the same thing. Again, this might be OK in certain games, but if you do this in others you will not work. Like my mom used to tell me often, you can be right and dead at the same time. If you call this and you never work I hope that rulebook makes you comfortable as you are watching (not you personally, but those that think that officiating is always about what is in the black and white of that rulebook). Just sharing what I have been taught, again I do not have to work with most here so anyone can choose to do what they want. But I have rarely ever seen a big 6'6" kid not knock over a kid much smaller than him when a player goes to the basket, so I choose to be very careful when calling this a foul. And this is one of many situations I am going to give the defense the benefit of the doubt unlike many officials I observe that do not know any better and call everything on the defense.

Out of all the years I have gone to camps, I have yet for anyone on these kinds of plays to tell me that when I passed on such a play to call a foul. I have had someone I worked with that called a foul told to let that go. That is telling to me as I have been all over the Midwest to officiating camps.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not talking about the case play in question. I am talking about the people that want to find a situation that means a player that goes to the floor is a foul.

I'm not one of those, so we agree.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

LGP is not the only way we determine a foul. If a dribbler pushes off on a defender and displaces that defender, I do not care whether they are in LGP at the time of the contact. That is a guide to let us call a foul when contact takes place, but does not apply across the board on all kinds of plays or absolve the ball handler of being the cause of contact.

We still agree. So far, so good.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I still call hand-checking when there is displacement and a player is put at a disadvantage. I do not call hand-checking and never will for a defender simply putting their hand on the ball handler. Oh, and the POEs almost never talk about the other rules that apply with incidental contact, but never change the rules to those rules. Actually I use the RSBQ philosophy to call hand-checking and anytime a player puts their hand on the dribbler that will get special attention, but not an automatic every time that action happens. And for the record I call a lot of hand-checking fouls as I use the RSBQ philosophy.

We may disagree slightly, but not by much.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, this might be OK in certain games, but if you do this in others you will not work.

Bingo. Here is the heart of my question(s):

Why not? Who gets to determine what philosophies work in certain games, but do not in others, under the same rules? I'm not talking about NFHS vs. NCAA, or girls vs. boys, but the philosophy that, perhaps, the contact as shown in the video might be a foul in a small school boys' game, but would be expected to be a no-call in a large-school game. Again, I'm not saying your statement above is wrong; I actually agree that it is probably true. But why wouldn't we strive to have the same philosophies at all levels within a particular rule set?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...Why not? Who gets to determine what philosophies work in certain games, but do not in others, under the same rules? I'm not talking about NFHS vs. NCAA, or girls vs. boys, but the philosophy that, perhaps, the contact as shown in the video might be a foul in a small school boys' game, but would be expected to be a no-call in a large-school game. Again, I'm not saying your statement above is wrong; I actually agree that it is probably true. But why wouldn't we strive to have the same philosophies at all levels within a particular rule set?

In these parts that person would be our commissioner/assignor. And right or wrong, it's something an official needs to grasp the nuances of in trying to transition from small-school schedule to a big-school schedule. Just like HS officials making the move from HS to college.

As I've slowly moved my way up the ladder I have found there are a lot of things that an official is expected to know without actually being taught.

[just another ref]

In a nutshell what we have is: Yeah, that may be the rule, but we don't call that.

I find this to be

a. more and more prevalent.

b. quite problematic

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Why not? Who gets to determine what philosophies work in certain games, but do not in others, under the same rules? I'm not talking about NFHS vs. NCAA, or girls vs. boys, but the philosophy that, perhaps, the contact as shown in the video might be a foul in a small school boys' game, but would be expected to be a no-call in a large-school game. Again, I'm not saying your statement above is wrong; I actually agree that it is probably true. But why wouldn't we strive to have the same philosophies at all levels within a particular rule set?

I'm not sure this is what I'm saying -- if it's what I said earlier, I'm not communicating well. The NBA play probably wouldn't be called a foul *by me* in an NCAA game or a HS game, boys or girls (although it wouldn't happen in a girls game and probably wouldn't happen in most small school rural games).

Just saying that I'd not be surprised if an official that works primarily small school rural games would more than likely call that a foul and nobody would say that this foul shouldn't be called. Step it up a notch or 6 and we have discussions like this.

It's not an easy thing, that's for sure. But when we have discussions about consistency at, say, the D-I NCAA level (which I don't work, but it's clear that some conferences play more physical ball than others) the disparity in the athletes from the top of D-I to the bottom of D-I is much less than the disparity I see at some D1 (big) city schools and most D5 (small) rural schools and it only makes sense that the game is going to (de facto) be called differently in those games as the quality of play, athleticism, and ability to play through contact is quite a bit different. But if a player in a girls game or a small school boys game got up like in the NBA play, swatted it away, and there's a bump subsequent where a player ends up off balance and on the floor? Probably calling the out of bounds and moving on.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Bingo. Here is the heart of my question(s):

Why not? Who gets to determine what philosophies work in certain games, but do not in others, under the same rules? I'm not talking about NFHS vs. NCAA, or girls vs. boys, but the philosophy that, perhaps, the contact as shown in the video might be a foul in a small school boys' game, but would be expected to be a no-call in a large-school game. Again, I'm not saying your statement above is wrong; I actually agree that it is probably true. But why wouldn't we strive to have the same philosophies at all levels within a particular rule set?

The people that do the hiring get to determine. And in the case of the NCAA, if they have a problem with the way this play is being called, they can put in on their bulletins and other literature. The NF does not have that kind of power other than to give a ruling and I have yet to read something that says that these should be a commonly called foul (Like our uniform rule). The only play I see is an intentional foul call and still that involves judgment. Again to act like there are things that are not "custom" is silly. Hardly any of us here work for the same people. That even includes you and me and we are in the same state (and you are a Cubs Fan and that brings another set of challenges LOL!!!). I am also not telling you or others what to do. I am just stating what I have always been taught to do and the justification behind it. If you disagree that is fine with me. I have to answer to those I work for and not those on this site. Then again we all have plays people would love to be called, but it not going to happen the way we would like at all times.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The people that do the hiring get to determine. And in the case of the NCAA, if they have a problem with the way this play is being called, they can put in on their bulletins and other literature. The NF does not have that kind of power other than to give a ruling and I have yet to read something that says that these should be a commonly called foul (Like our uniform rule). The only play I see is an intentional foul call and still that involves judgment. Again to act like there are things that are not "custom" is silly. Hardly any of us here work for the same people. That even includes you and me and we are in the same state (and you are a Cubs Fan and that brings another set of challenges LOL!!!). I am also not telling you or others what to do. I am just stating what I have always been taught to do and the justification behind it. If you disagree that is fine with me. I have to answer to those I work for and not those on this site. Then again we all have plays people would love to be called, but it not going to happen the way we would like at all times.

Peace

Yup.

And when you work games that have multiple D-I prospects one night and a varsity game the next night where either team could be beaten easily by the freshman teams from the night before, you start to understand that you *have* to adapt from one night to another. Despite what some say, it's not the same game. Not even close.

[walter]

At the higher level camps I've been to, and from what I've been told by assigners/supervisors, an official must see the whole play begin, develop, finish, and then decide whether a whistle is needed. Granted, all of those steps take place at high speed. However, seeing the whole play from start through finish is key. It is not problematic as JAR wrote. It is simple officiating. To me, and the way I read RUT's and other posts, we are simply stating that if throughout the entire play, the defense has done nothing illegal (stays within his/her plane, etc), there could very well be contact (maybe severe) that is not illegal. At a D1 camp last summer, I was told to look at every contact situation with the following thoughts; "Did the defender do anything that he/she was not entitled to do within the rules? And, just because there was contact, was the contact marginal, or incidental given the movement of the players, or illegal?" If the contact was marginal or incidental, there should not be a whistle. I believe too often, we see contact and put air in the whistle without ever letting the play finish.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The people that do the hiring get to determine. And in the case of the NCAA, if they have a problem with the way this play is being called, they can put in on their bulletins and other literature. The NF does not have that kind of power other than to give a ruling and I have yet to read something that says that these should be a commonly called foul (Like our uniform rule). The only play I see is an intentional foul call and still that involves judgment. Again to act like there are things that are not "custom" is silly. Hardly any of us here work for the same people. That even includes you and me and we are in the same state (and you are a Cubs Fan and that brings another set of challenges LOL!!!). I am also not telling you or others what to do. I am just stating what I have always been taught to do and the justification behind it. If you disagree that is fine with me. I have to answer to those I work for and not those on this site. Then again we all have plays people would love to be called, but it not going to happen the way we would like at all times.

Peace

Jeff, remember, I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong by any means. I agree you have to do what works for you in getting assigned.

But my question to you, Rich, and BadNews, is why do we have these different philosophies, and how can we get them to be a little more standard? I can tell you that this forum is valuable in helping people in one part of the country understand what is happening in other parts. But we even have these differences within the same state, and sometimes within the same areas. This is exactly why Rich mentioned the complaints about how a state tournament game was called - the officials called it one way because that's the way they were used to calling it, while the team that participated was used to a different philosophy.

Oh, and one last thing:

[insert pic of middle finger]

You just better hope Michigan football isn't at the beginning of their 100-year run of futility.