Discussed in an association meeting last night...

[Rich]

Just an example to remind me how hard inexperienced officials have it and also how important it is to have a good foundation in the rules.

JV game. Home team down 2 points. Shot goes up, covering official marks it as a 3-point attempt, successful at the horn. Everyone except the visiting team happy, right?

Until the other official comes out and insists that there was a foot on the line. The officials talk and they decide to count the bucket as a 2.

Tie game. Overtime, right?

Then the home coach goes nuts and gets himself whacked.

Then it all falls apart. Neither official knows for certain how to administer this situation. One official runs off the court to find a book and/or the varsity officials (who are getting ready) to help.

Somehow, they still get it wrong. They shoot FTs, the team hits one, and they call the game.

By the end of this, I was wincing. The lesson here? I frequently joke that you really don't need to know a lot of rules compared with other sports I work (football, baseball), but that's not really true. It's just that once an official gets a good foundation in the rules that it isn't really hard to keep up since rules rarely change (in such a way to make things really difficult for us).

I also heard last night that a JV Boys coach got ejected last week and I've personally had two head coach technicals (one from me, one from a partner) in the last two games. The season's heating up it seems.

[letemplay]

Was that the end of story?

[Welpe]

I'm guessing he wasn't even there. I'm not saying a word about behavior, I'll probably jinx myself though I did toss a fan on Monday.

[Hartsy]

I've also been thinking this season has been more heated than usual. My patience for coaches is running out.

[mbyron]

Rich, can you help newbies here with how the situation should have been handled?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Rich, can you help newbies here with how the situation should have been handled?

Since the shot was counted as two points, the game is tied at the end of regulation, so you will be playing OT.

OT starts with two FTs for the visitors with the lane cleared, followed by a division line throw in. Home gets the AP arrow.

Sorry Rich.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Since the shot was counted as two points, the game is tied at the end of regulation, so you will be playing OT.

OT starts with two FTs for the visitors with the lane cleared, followed by a division line throw in. Home gets the AP arrow.

Sorry Rich.

That's fine. That's the rule which is really easy (if you know the rule). If the 4th quarter ends and the score is tied, anything subsequent is part of OT. If the score isn't tied, the technical is part of the fourth quarter (since there is no overtime without a tied score) and FTs are shot if they can affect who wins (or ties) the game.

Some of this stuff comes pretty easy to those of us who have experience and know the rules, but it's just a reminder that a lot of games are worked with 2 first year officials (for example) and reflexive rule knowledge isn't quite there yet.

Of course if the official did ask the varsity officials and they gave the wrong answer (I wasn't there), shame on them.

[jTheUmp]

Relative newbie (3rd season) here.... let me know if I screwed up anywhere.

The 2-point vs 3-point should've been the call of the official who is in the primary.... so if the primary official signaled 3, it should've been 3. However, we're always told to "get the call right" so if the other official is 110% sure the foot was on the line, I'm ok with calling it a 2-point try.

At this point, tie game, 4th quarter is over, and any action thereafter happens in overtime.

Coach technical, therefore, occurs at the start of overtime. 2 shots for the other team with the lane cleared, throw-in at mid-court, arrow pointing to team whose coach got whacked.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Relative newbie (3rd season) here.... let me know if I screwed up anywhere.

The 2-point vs 3-point should've been the call of the official who is in the primary.... so if the primary official signaled 3, it should've been 3. However, we're always told to "get the call right" so if the other official is 110% sure the foot was on the line, I'm ok with calling it a 2-point try.

I would add: (a) partner should be watching the release of the shot, to have an opinion about whether it beat the horn; focusing on the foot is the wrong place. (b) partner should be 100% sure that the foot was WAY over the line; a toenail is not enough to "fix" this.

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I would add: (a) partner should be watching the release of the shot, to have an opinion about whether it beat the horn; focusing on the foot is the wrong place. (b) partner should be 100% sure that the foot was WAY over the line; a toenail is not enough to "fix" this.

Way over? On the line is 2... as long as it shows up on the game film.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tref

Way over? On the line is 2... as long as it shows up on the game film.

In a JV game? With 2 officials? How good a look do you think partner got?

[zm1283]

I wince every time a veteran official tells me that "I just go officiate. I don't need to be a 'rule book' referee". These are the same guys who refuse to enforce the rules as written. (Won't call a T for a pregame dunk, won't call a T for touching the ball OOB when in possession of the thrower, won't give DOG warnings, etc) I think this is usually a "path of least resistance" thing and they don't want to rock the boat and get coaches upset with them. Might hurt that rating.

[letemplay]

Isn't there a coach on the "other end" of each of these calls or non-calls?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Isn't there a coach on the "other end" of each of these calls or non-calls?

What's your point? And what does this have to do with the point Rich was trying to make with this thread?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Smitty

What's your point? And what does this have to do with the point Rich was trying to make with this thread?

I think he was replying to me, but didn't quote me. I tied my little rant into Rich talking about officials having a good foundation of rules knowledge.

I sort of got it mixed up. The officials I'm talking about in part of my post do know the rules, they just refuse to enforce some of them. Then there are guys, veterans included, that just don't know the rules. I'm not sure which is worse.