Make the call

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

Some coaches know the rules...

Exactly. And some coaches have videos they send in to supervisors. And if they send in a tape showing A1 is still dribbling when B2 fouls A2 then you have 1 of 2 problems with purposely delaying the whistle, integrity or rules knowledge.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If your team commits such a foul at this time, there's not much of a leg to stand on, IMO.

The rule book is a pretty strong leg, IMO. How close is close enough? If A1 is near the division line when A2 gets plowed, you still going to hold your whistle?

Intentional fouls usually need to be grabbed immediately to prevent escalation, especially when committed out of frustration. And frankly, I'd rather fall back on the rules than a questionable interpretation of a barely related case play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule book is a pretty strong leg, IMO. How close is close enough? If A1 is near the division line when A2 gets plowed, you still going to hold your whistle?

Intentional fouls usually need to be grabbed immediately to prevent escalation, especially when committed out of frustration. And frankly, I'd rather fall back on the rules than a questionable interpretation of a barely related case play.

I agree....there is only so long you can wait. If the ball is at the division line, you probably can't wait.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree....there is only so long you can wait.

Not to nit-pick but exactly how long can we wait to call an INT off-ball personal foul?

After the kid retaliates & jumps in the offenders face? Now we gotta false double.

After a punch is thrown? Now we have to upgrade what was an INT to a flagrant & both kids are tossed.

In my sitch, does the team up by 20 really need a bucket, 2 shots & the ball back?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Exactly. And some coaches have videos they send in to supervisors. And if they send in a tape showing A1 is still dribbling when B2 fouls A2 then you have 1 of 2 problems with purposely delaying the whistle, integrity or rules knowledge.

Not necessarily. This is more about rule philosophy. I believe we all have solid knowledge.

The aforementioned case play makes it clear to me that you can't let the defense take away an obvious scoring opportunity from the offense. If the coach has such a problem with it that he would send in a tape to your supervisor, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Either the supervisor is going to back up your ruling, or at least talk with you about it. Either way, someone is going to learn something, and make a greater stride toward everyone getting on the same page.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not necessarily. This is more about rule philosophy. I believe we all have solid knowledge.

The aforementioned case play makes it clear to me that you can't let the defense take away an obvious scoring opportunity from the offense. If the coach has such a problem with it that he would send in a tape to your supervisor, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Either the supervisor is going to back up your ruling, or at least talk with you about it. Either way, someone is going to learn something, and make a greater stride toward everyone getting on the same page.

My supervisors aren't going to accept me "learning something" in a real game that I already should have known.

The exception for a delayed whistle applies to unsporting behavior that is penalized by a technical foul. It's a specific case play. Extrapolating that to this play has no basis in the rule book because you already have rules and case plays that tell you how to handle personal fouls away from the ball when a shot is imminent.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not necessarily. This is more about rule philosophy. I believe we all have solid knowledge.

Even the ones who try to tie delayed whistles for an unsporting technical foul or defensive FT violation to live ball INT fouls?

Originally Posted by bainsey

The aforementioned case play makes it clear to me that you can't let the defense take away an obvious scoring opportunity from the offense.

Coming back to get a "ref you suck" is much different than coming back to get an illegal physical act that already occured.

Originally Posted by bainsey

If the coach has such a problem with it that he would send in a tape to your supervisor, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Either the supervisor is going to back up your ruling, or at least talk with you about it. Either way, someone is going to learn something, and make a greater stride toward everyone getting on the same page.

No disrespect but do you work levels higher than HS? If so, you must be really cool with your supervisor! Because I dont want any "talks" with mine except for, "you've shown improvement" or "I have more games for you to work."
My bosses expect staff to already know these things...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My supervisors aren't going to accept me "learning something" in a real game that I already should have known.

The exception for a delayed whistle applies to unsporting behavior that is penalized by a technical foul. It's a specific case play. Extrapolating that to this play has no basis in the rule book because you already have rules and case plays that tell you how to handle personal fouls away from the ball when a shot is imminent.

The rules and case book plays are not an exhaustive list of what you can/should call or not call. They are a framework showing you the direction and philosophy of how the game should generally be played what should be called. Yes, you should call plays that match the cases as they are presented in the casebok but when plays occur that fall between the cases, you have to extrapolate the spirit of the rules/cases to apply to the situation you have. Almost every rule, and many case plays are not written considering all contingencies...they're written as examples.

If you only made calls on plays that exactly match the case book, you'd be missing a lot of calls. Again, case book plays are not "specific" but are examples. You shouldn't limit yourself to applying the concepts in the case only to situations where the exact same events occur.

As for the delayed T, there is no rules basis for that case play either....but it is there.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rules and case book plays are not an exhaustive list of what you can/should call or not call. They are a framework showing you the direction and philosophy of how the game should generally be played what should be called. Yes, you should call plays that match the cases as they are presented in the casebok but when plays occur that fall between the cases, you have to extrapolate the spirit of the rules/cases to apply to the situation you have. Almost every rule, and many case plays are not written considering all contingencies...they're written as examples.

If you only made calls on plays that exactly match the case book, you'd be missing a lot of calls. Again, case book plays are not "specific" but are examples. You shouldn't limit yourself to applying the concepts in the case only to situations where the exact same events occur.

As for the delayed T, there is no rules basis for that case play either....but it is there.

There is a case play for a delayed T whether there is a rule for it or not, pure and simple.

There are rules and cases plays for personal fouls away from the ball when shots are imminent or in flight.

I fail to see the grey that needs interpreting.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

No disrespect but do you work levels higher than HS?

None taken, and negative. Truth be told, I wish I had more "talks." Feedback is a little scarce in these parts. (That's another story.)

I see your point, though. We're at completely different levels with different expectations. I've never had to deal with the sitch in question -- who knows if I ever will -- so if you have a case play that counters the aforementioned, I'll be glad to hear it.

[tref]

Cool!

At the HS level the assigning body needs us just as much as we need them. Higher levels need only one misapplication of the rules to suspend you or even worse, let you go. Afterall, there are many new prospects each year. So the accountability factor is much different.

I hadn't seen that play before either. Thats why I brought it here after my partner (higher level than myself) questioned it. I wanted to make sure I got it right should it ever come up again.

I do not have a caseplay to counter the aforementioned... but the aforementioned clearly applies to non-contact unsporting technical fouls. And we all know an INT personal is not in the same family as Ts.

Where is JR when you need him?? There may be a caseplay from '77 that deals with this

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

At the HS level the assigning body needs us just as much as we need them. Higher levels need only one misapplication of the rules to suspend you or even worse, let you go. Afterall, there are many new prospects each year. So the accountability factor is much different.

Good ol' supply and demand! It belongs right up there with death and taxes.

I do not have a caseplay to counter the aforementioned... but the aforementioned clearly applies to non-contact unsporting technical fouls. And we all know an INT personal is not in the same family as Ts.

I'm not totally sold on that, yet.

For me, it comes back to advantage/disadvantage. Does the contact create an unfair advantage? Will blowing the whistle compromise a fairly earned advantage?

Now, if there's case play that soundly states the play must be blown dead immediately, then my point is moot. That's all I'm stating. I'll defer to the senior statesmen of this board for such a ruling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...Now, if there's case play that soundly states the play must be blown dead immediately, then my point is moot. That's all I'm stating. I'll defer to the senior statesmen of this board for such a ruling.

Look up personal fouls that occur when a shot is imminent or in flight. That will give you what you need.

Never during my travels have I heard to withhold a whistle on an intentioal foul based on advantage/disadvantage.

[BillyMac]

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good ol' supply and demand! It belongs right up there with death and taxes.



I'm not totally sold on that, yet.

For me, it comes back to advantage/disadvantage. Does the contact create an unfair advantage? Will blowing the whistle compromise a fairly earned advantage?

Now, if there's case play that soundly states the play must be blown dead immediately, then my point is moot. That's all I'm stating. I'll defer to the senior statesmen of this board for such a ruling.

No, there's no case play that says that. There's a rule. The case play that says the opposite applies to technical fouls, not intentional fouls.

All the case plays you need are there to determine how to administer the play when a personal foul occurs before a try has begun; and they all comply with the rule.

The "unfair advantage" is punished by two shots and the ball, per the rule. It's why you don't just go with a common foul. It's the same as if B1 had fouled A1 rather than A2. If he shoved A1 two steps before he could begin gathering the dribble, would you give him the shot anyway?