Dribbler cuts in front of defender

[ronald]

Well Jr, if I was being evaluated by IAABO board 12 and I called it correctly, they would have no problem with the call since they specifically went over situations of this nature.

Chuck has rarely seen it if I recall it correctly. So hopefully I will not have to make that call ever. I agree that most would not understand it and I would most likely feel pretty lonely out there.

Actually, I had a play similar to that early this season. Defender was going down the lane in his path and the offender was trying to beat him. Defender jumped in his vertical plane while the offender jumped into the defender making considerable contact. Called a PC and sure enough felt awkard.

Last time I did that this year. Had a couple others but no called them. Afterwards, wished I had called a PC. I thought I had cheated myself as an official. I believe thae when you make tough calls correctly, your confidence grows and you grow as an official and the next time you see the same play the call is easier.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

JRut on the other hand has taken the stance that he will IGNORE the correct rule and call a foul on the defense anyway. I believe that is irresponsible officiating and that he is doing a disservice to the game by doing this.

If we were to have a discussion about 3 seconds, I wonder how many here would call it the way the rules state it(actually 3 seconds, not 4, 8 or 10 as many have stated here as their personal requirement).

If we were to talk about multiple fouls, I already know of how many people have claimed they have called it and why (This happens at least once a game, funny I have never seen it called).

If we talk about the many scorebook situations that could cause a T, I know many that try to avoid being entirely strict as it states in the rulebook. Because if this situation we are talking about now is a disservice, all these other philosophies are a disservice as well.

I will expect the next conversation we have about those other rules I stated, you will come out and say the same thing. But my guess is, that those examples and many not specifically mentioned will not fit your point of view at the time, and you will say nothing or support your own philosophy on how you would handle those situations. This is one of the many reasons that individuals that actually played the game at some point of their lives, tend to benefit in ways that others that never played do not. Because when you play the game, certain things are expected of you as a player. I do not think any defensive player would be upset if you called a foul on them or even claim "he did not give my those two steps" as their argument. Now I do not know too many officials on blind screens nit pick the "step" because part of the expectation of a blind screen, is to have teammates warn you when being screened. And no different in the rules of verticality on rebounds, am I going to penalize a player for jumping over another player and his opponent did not "box out" or put a body on anyone. All these are judgement calls, but there are things that are going to influence my judgement on these things. A defensive player putting himself in that position is one for me on this particular play.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ronald
Well Jr, if I was being evaluated by IAABO board 12 and I called it correctly, they would have no problem with the call since they specifically went over situations of this nature.

Probably the best point you made. You belong to a board that I do not belong to. I do not answer to IAABO in any way, shape or form. So what IAABO Board 12-25 thinks means little or nothing to me.

And this past year in my state, I had an incident where a coach wrote a letter to the assignor of the conference about a call I had made which resulted in me giving my only Technical Foul of the year on a coach. In this coaches letter, he talked about "other officials did it this way." Well the problem is, he was talking about officials that belong to associations that I was not a member of. And when I talked to my partner's about the situation and just this week explained it to the members of one of my associations, everyone agreed with my point of view. And at the end of the day, you have to do what they do in your parts, not what they do in other associations or boards.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Rut,
You make some good points in your response. I should also say that you have made some good points in this entire thread. It stands out to me as one in which you have argued rather coherently and intelligently. Sorry to say that I believe many of your other posts have degenerated into name calling and cryptic remarks.
I'll admit that I agree that most of the better officials do not use the correct 3 second rule and I'll concede that we do try to handle administrative matters without the severest of penalities being given.
I'll even throw the traveling rule into the mix with those. However, those are violations and administrative matters. They are a bit different than contact/fouls on the court. Right?
To me your example about using discretion when it comes to rebounding situations is the most analogous. I feel that there is considerable room for an official to use discretion in these mobs that occur under the basket and in the ensuing scrambles for the ball and you rightly point this out.
However, I am going to make the point that it seems to be more justified to officiate in this manner in situations like this where neither team has possession. In a situation where there is clearly a dribbler and a defender, I believe there is little justification for not making the correct call when contact occurs.

Heaven help you if this play ever occurs at a time where it is a real game breaker and you are being observed or evaluated. When it is discovered that you knew the rule, saw the whole play, and purposely made the wrong call based on some philosophy you hold, I believe you will be finished in that conference/association or with that assignor.
Just my thoughts, and again you are right that for the good of the game we don't follow all the rules exactly. We simply disagree on this particular case.

[Nevadaref]

JRut,
To further support your administrative T point, Texas just failed to have all five players return to the floor following the time-out with 18 seconds left as they were going to inbound. The officials didn't call a T, but told Texas to get the guy's butt off the bench and onto the court. We agree they ignored the rule on this and the game was better for it.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Heaven help you if this play ever occurs at a time where it is a real game breaker and you are being observed or evaluated. When it is discovered that you knew the rule, saw the whole play, and purposely made the wrong call based on some philosophy you hold, I believe you will be finished in that conference/association or with that assignor.
Just my thoughts, and again you are right that for the good of the game we don't follow all the rules exactly. We simply disagree on this particular case.

Well if I move to the Pacific Nortwest or I work in a conference that advocates this practice, you might be right on many levels. But you also have to do more than just call things that are rules as written, you have to call things that are obvious and easily understandable. And in my experience there are many things that we know the rules, but do not apply to the letter to stay hired in those conferences. And when they changed the rules on 3 seconds and an interrupted dribble in NCAA Rules, we were told by an assignor, "not to go out making this call." You can call it ignoring a rule or not, but that is what this assignor said to officials that work for him. The rest is up to you.

Peace

[Hawks Coach]

All of you who support this as a PC blocking foul, then you should call it that way when it happens as a player cuts into the blocks in front of a defender who is running straight to block but is a 1/4 step behind. In my experience, even if the defender holds her line, if the ball handler gets 2 inches around the defender and goes up for the layup, the shooter gets the call. This happens all the time, unlike the instance you cite), and is always a block on the defense because they did not get to the spot. And that's the way I expect it to be called. Get in defensive position, or suffer the consequences.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Get in defensive position, or suffer the consequences.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
All of you who support this as a PC blocking foul, then you should call it that way when it happens as a player cuts into the blocks in front of a defender who is running straight to block but is a 1/4 step behind. In my experience, even if the defender holds her line, if the ball handler gets 2 inches around the defender and goes up for the layup, the shooter gets the call. This happens all the time, unlike the instance you cite), and is always a block on the defense because they did not get to the spot. And that's the way I expect it to be called. Get in defensive position, or suffer the consequences.

You just cited a completely different situation,Coach.The one that you cite above is covered under a different rules citation too-casebook play 10.6.2SitA.There's a difference between converging paths and parallel paths,and that's why there's a casebook play covering each DIFFERENT situation.NCAA rules make the same distinction.

[Hawks Coach]

I am not talking about converging paths. I am talking about a dribbler that is moving along the same path as the defender, then takes that extra big step and turn to launch themselves past and in front of the defender, in the process drawing contact that appears to come from behind. The ballhandler initiates, the defender is called, every time. And I will always teach players to do that on offense until I see it called different - which means I will always teach them to do it

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I am not talking about converging paths. I am talking about a dribbler that is moving along the same path as the defender, then takes that extra big step and turn to launch themselves past and in front of the defender, in the process drawing contact that appears to come from behind. The ballhandler initiates, the defender is called, every time. And I will always teach players to do that on offense until I see it called different - which means I will always teach them to do it

There's different rules for dribblers and shooters too,Coach.Most good officials will look for the shooter who jumps into a defender.In my experience,the play that you are describing above very rarely has parallel,STRAIGHT LINE paths,which is the situation that JeffRef described originally.The defender usually alters their path while playing defense,or is approaching the dribbler at an angle(even if it is slight),which bring the "guarding" principles into play over the "screening" principles.

The two casebook plays do a good job of spelling out the difference,and also why they are supposed to be called differently.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


In my experience,the play that you are describing above very rarely has parallel,STRAIGHT LINE paths,which is the situation that JeffRef described originally.The defender usually alters their path while playing defense,or is approaching the dribbler at an angle(even if it is slight),which bring the "guarding" principles into play over the "screening" principles.

If you have to go to that extreme to explain the situation to justify how good of a call this is, then you need to leave it alone. Because we are making distictions between straight lines and altered paths. So how much of an altered path are we going to consider there to be for us not to call a PC Foul on the dribbler? So when I call a foul, am I going to draw a line from point A to point B to determine if the defenders path was straight or not? I knew that Geometry class would come in hand someday.

I really do not mean to sound coy, but that seems like splitting hairs to me. You know darn well the coach is not trying to suggest the difference between a straight line or an altered path. He is basically saying that a dribbler, going to the basket is not and has not bee called for a foul, not in the process of shooting, but slows down and gets run over by the defender who did not get "two steps" to stop or alter his path.

Good, now you gave me more ammo to not call this at all. I will just say that the defender altered his path. Just like in 3 seconds, "his foot was not on the line coach."

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge

If you have to go to that extreme to explain the situation to justify how good of a call this is, then you need to leave it alone.

If you go back and read the posts ,you will note that I am telling you exactly what the rulebooks-NFHS and NCAA-say.Nothing more-nothing less.I have not told you,or anyone else,how you should personally call it,or how I would personally call it.If you want to ignore both these rulebooks,be my guest.Call it any way that you want to.I could care less.That was never my point.The original point that you made that I responded to was YOUR assertion that this play was NOT covered in the casebook.It is covered explicitly,and I gave you the rules citations to prove it-both FED & NCAA.

JeffRef's original post was correct,by rule.Do you dispute that? If you do,please cite the rules that will back your dissent up.My assertation is that the plays that I cited back Jeff up.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If you go back and read the posts ,you will note that I am telling you exactly what the rulebooks-NFHS and NCAA-say.Nothing more-nothing less.I have not told you,or anyone else,how you should personally call it,or how I would personally call it.

OK

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If you want to ignore both these rulebooks,be my guest.Call it any way that you want to.I could care less.That was never my point.The original point that you made that I responded to was YOUR assertion that this play was NOT covered in the casebook.It is covered explicitly,and I gave you the rules citations to prove it-both FED & NCAA.

In the NF Rulebook it is a comment, not a specific play. The comment basically says that you should apply screening principles to a dribbler. The NCAA Reference is what it is. Calling 3 seconds in the lane was a new rule this year when an interrupted dribble is taking place. I was told by two college assignors to not make this an issue. But then again, I guess I should be a maverick and call this anyway. It is in the rulebook?

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

JeffRef's original post was correct,by rule.Do you dispute that? If you do,please cite the rules that will back your dissent up.My assertation is that the plays that I cited back Jeff up.

I do not dispute anything having to do with the rule or where it is located. My dispute or assertion is that this is not only hard to sell, but not good common sense. Because in your own words, everything has to be lined up perfectly in order to make this call in the first place. Not because I said so, because it would take the judgement (and this is important here) I would have to consider all these things to happen perfectly to make this call. And all I ever said was I would not be the one to make this call. And I would do whatever to not make this call. Just like a multiple foul (and no one seems to want to address this) happens almost every single game I have ever officiated, and I do not see you talking about, "Well it is in the rulebook. How can you deny it is in the rulebook?" But as I said before, everything in the rulebook, National Federation or NCAA, does not mean you should go out of your way to call it. It was not called in this particular NCAA Men's Regional Final, but I do not hear you talking about the officials did not know the rule. I do not hear you being condesending to the officials that did not make this call in a game we all had a chance to see on National Television. But you want to say, "I gotcha" to prove something you claim you do not care about. My only point was that this was a stretch. And when I read both citations in the rulebook, I still feel that it is a stretch to call this. If you think this is proper call it, but I am not.

Peace

[just another ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

As a baseball umpire, if a throw beats a runner to the base, it is expected to call that runner out if he makes a normal slide and the defender makes a normal effort to make a tag.

Even when the tag is on the runner's head and the runner's
butt is resting on the plate? So that was you at the game last week!