Make the call

[Camron Rust]

You can either take a narrow view of case plays only only apply them when every single detail matches the case play or you can take a broad view of the case plays and see the concepts and philosophies in them and apply them to similar situations. I view the case plays as examples of the types of calls desired expecting officials to be able to understand ideas, not an exhaustive list of the exact situations for officials that can't think to just memorize.

By all means, if you sense escalation, you can't wait...but we were not really talking about what else might happen. We're talking about what did happen and assuming that is ALL that happened.

[MD Longhorn]

And people wonder why there's such a lack of consistency in basketball officiating. Wow. What a mess. Seems the NFHS has given the basketball officials just enough rope to hang their hat on when inventing a ruling on this case. I hate the invent-a-rule crowd. I agree you don't need caseplays to cover every situation ... but if you're going to write a caseplay that's not supported by rule - PLEASE change the rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can either take a narrow view of case plays only only apply them when every single detail matches the case play or you can take a broad view of the case plays and see the concepts and philosophies in them and apply them to similar situations. I view the case plays as examples of the types of calls desired expecting officials to be able to understand ideas, not an exhaustive list of the exact situations for officials that can't think to just memorize.

By all means, if you sense escalation, you can't wait...but we were not really talking about what else might happen. We're talking about what did happen and assuming that is ALL that happened.

Fair enough, but the lack of a case play saying we can delay a call for any live ball contact foul leaves me unable to take that same step.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

The rule is explicit.

Citation?

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

And people wonder why there's such a lack of consistency in basketball officiating. Wow. What a mess. Seems the NFHS has given the basketball officials just enough rope to hang their hat on when inventing a ruling on this case. I hate the invent-a-rule crowd. I agree you don't need caseplays to cover every situation ... but if you're going to write a caseplay that's not supported by rule - PLEASE change the rule.

I wouldn't say this is a mess, but it certainly does expose a messy potential.

Rules are, in a nutshell, agreements. That is, it's been agreed that this is the way we're going to play, and how we're going to handle these defined situations. In this case, it's not that a rule needs to be changed, it's the penalty that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, these disagreements will continue.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Citation?


I wouldn't say this is a mess, but it certainly does expose a messy potential.

Rules are, in a nutshell, agreements. That is, it's been agreed that this is the way we're going to play, and how we're going to handle these defined situations. In this case, it's not that a rule needs to be changed, it's the penalty that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, these disagreements will continue.

There's nothing to disagree with here.

The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation. There is nothing in the book that says we can ignore that particular rule just because we think it's more fair to do so. The penalty is clearly defined, you just don't think it's enough.

The case play Camron is using applies to unsporting behavior, not contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's nothing to disagree with here.

The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation. There is nothing in the book that says we can ignore that particular rule just because we think it's more fair to do so. The penalty is clearly defined, you just don't think it's enough.

The case play Camron is using applies to unsporting behavior, not contact.

Except, there is no rule to support even the unsporting behavior case. By rule, the ball became dead at the time of the unsporting behavior. But yet, the case plays says to wait. But with what rule to support it? None. So, by your standard, even that case is incorrect and shouldn't be followed.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation.

That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

You don't need me to look it up for you, do you?

The point is, the rule is clear and so is the penalty. Dancing around asking "which rule" when the rule is clear just doesn't work.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You don't need me to look it up for you, do you?

Why not? I did. That's how we back up our opinions -- with facts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Why not? I did. That's how we back up our opinions -- with facts.

Three reasons:
1. I don't have my book with me right now. I'm at work, the book is at home, which is full of boxes and junk since we just moved.
2. I've sufficiently described the rule that you could find it if you wanted to; if it mattered to you.
3. It's a basic rule that I'm sure you already know. The ball becomes dead when a foul is committed: unless, on a foul by the defense, the habitual shooting motion has begun for a try.

I'm not confused about why you want to ignore the rule and delay the whistle; I'm confused about how you can possibly think the rule is unclear.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

In the real world, your supervisor is not going to sit around while you sift through Camron's 4 paragraphs of unrelated rulings and case plays to explain why you are allowing a basket when an obvious intentional foul occured while A1 was still dribbling. He going to look at the tape, see an obvious foul, then see A1 take 2 more dribbles and score and then see you whistle the foul. And he is going to say "WTF!!! Call the obvious, enforce the rules, and quit trying to be cute"

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether or not you would have the same delayed enforcement if A1 were the one who was intentionally fouled and then took 2 more dribbles before shooting and scoring.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And he is going to say "WTF!!! Call the obvious, enforce the rules, and quit trying to be cute"

Again with the word "cute." Since when is using your brains "cute?"

To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

I'm not sure why you need explicit instructions to follow the rules as written.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Again with the word "cute." Since when is using your brains "cute?"

To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

You're right about HTBT as far as call it, not call it. But to say you would delay your whistle, allow the basket, and then enforce the intentional foul has absolutely no rules or case book basis. But now you are changing your reason for delaying the whistle from "fairness" to "based upon chances of retaliation".

And am I reading correctly that in certain situations you would allow A1 to take 2 more dribbles, shoot and score, and then call an intentional foul for what happened during the dribble? What would be your determining factor(s) to do that? One game you kill the play immediately. The next you wouldn't call anything at all. Then the next game you allow 2 more dribbles, a basket, then enforce an intentional foul. Would you consider that consistent enforcement of the rules? What trouble or beef would you get into if every time you see an intentional foul you whistle and enforce it based upon the status of the ball? How much explaining to coaches and supervisors would you have to do then as opposed to telling your supervisor it was an HTBT situation as to why you did it one way one game and another way the next.

And to say, as you did to Snaqs, that case plays from the case book are not legitimate citations is also wrong. And intentionals on break-aways happen more than once in a blue moon. This not some abstract concept we are discussing.