On the shot or not

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Here's what surprised me, you defaulted to a passive-aggressive response. To paraphrase,
"I'm not going to get into it with you fools because you're too stupid and/or old to get it without calling me names."

I don't always agree with you, but I don't think I've ever called you names. And I know you're not that thin-skinned (you've achieved too high a level of officiating for that to be true) that you'd bow out of a debate before you even got started.

Now, for the record, your clarification doesn't seem that bad to me; as long as your added information is made quietly enough not to back your partner into a corner (he may well have had a significant foul before the gather). And while I would prefer this to be done mostly on double-whistle fouls, I can see situations where a single whistle would still work.

Personally, I'm more likely to offer an encouraging, "Are we shooting, Bill?" as opposed to waiting for him to tell me one way or the other.

No sir, I wasnt referencing you as one that loves to smack me around for saying things they have not heard before.
Rocky co-signed it so I doubt we will hear from them on this

On quietly vs loud, I have a mental rolodex of my partners & what they prefer. The ECA (Exclusive Coverage Area) guys I would try to walk by in switching before they get to the table & say it quietly.
Guys that are on board with the program, I'll say it right where I stand because I know they'll say "YEP" without needing to ask & clarify just to reject.

As far as if they had the foul before the gather, they need to call it before the player gets in the act & the ball goes in using some voice to clarify that fact. Making everyone think its an And1 when its really a do over is a sure set up to get the coach, players & crowd all over the crew. That will happen more than enough without the officials doing it to themselves.
So either cal those when they happen or hold the whistle a tad, allowing the player to get in the motion then reward them.

We have to know what animal (level/gender) we are dealing with & I'm learning that we also have to know what type of partner we are dealing with from night to night. As long as the film shows me trying to offer info, I'm okay with a partner rejecting the info & messing up the call consistency. Because when I get a similar play, mine go to the line.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tref

Rocky co-signed it so I doubt we will hear from them on this

.

Hahahaha...having me co-sign on something with you is a GREAT way to get smacked around by some of the people on this forum!!

[tref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Hahahaha...having me co-sign on something with you is a GREAT way to get smacked around by some of the people on this forum!!

Nah just like myself, they respect what you bring to the table!

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by tref

On quietly vs loud, I have a mental rolodex of my partners & what they prefer. The ECA (Exclusive Coverage Area) guys I would try to walk by in switching before they get to the table & say it quietly.
Guys that are on board with the program, I'll say it right where I stand because I know they'll say "YEP" without needing to ask & clarify just to reject.

After lurking on this one I'm glad to say I finally understand what you're talking about. Maybe it's something used in NCAAM because I haven't heard it on the NCAAW side of things, though I plan to ask about it when I head to camp this weekend.

[tref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

After lurking on this one I'm glad to say I finally understand what you're talking about. Maybe it's something used in NCAAM because I haven't heard it on the NCAAW side of things, though I plan to ask about it when I head to camp this weekend.

Have fun & do your thing! Let me know what their thoughts are.

Now that I think about it, I was introduced to the principle by a DI/DII womens official a couple years ago.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

If you have not heard of a partner telling the calling official "he had him going up" be patient, its coming to a City near you soon. If you dont want to wait, try going to some camps out of your region or at higher levels than you normally attend.
At the end of the day the calling official still has the decision to change it or keep it the same or even worse ask "are you sure."

For the record, I attend camps every year out of state. Not that I need to considering that most of the college I work I work with a D1 official almost every game. Or someone that has had that experience. Save the "You do not understand my level..." crap. Where do you think I have personally met people that have been on this board? It was not on vacation.

I was just looking for your explanation and what you meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by tref

You certainly would provide info when your partner attempts to shoot FTs on an offensive (PC or TC) foul... wouldnt ya?
When the L administers the FT & says 2 when its really 3 or 1 you would provide info from the C or T... wouldnt ya?
When the AP arrow isnt working or you know the table missed switching it, you would provide that info to official administering the incorrect throw-in (before the throw-in is complete) wouldn't ya?

Making sure we do not shoot FTs on a TC/PC situation is a lot different than telling a partner what they called. If that was the case every other travel call I would come in and change the call based on the actual rule.

Originally Posted by tref

Just a team officiating concept man. Because they paid for a CREW of 3 that works together not 3 individuals letting each other live & die with incorrect decisions that ruin the GAME.

If you paid all that money to attend camps, you also should realize that they hire 3 individuals that can do the job. And if you cannot do the job, they will find someone else that can. This is not like football where we work with the same people all the time. Yes we are a crew, but not where we have to help each other on basic calls on the time.

I just would have been simple if you stated what you were talking about.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Obviously the ball must be gathered prior to the release, but that doesn't equate to throwing for goal as a player must also gather the ball to pass it. I want to see a little more. I desire to see the players arms/hands do something which indicates the desire to shoot. On a jumpshot, I look for the hand to come under the ball as wrist is cocked back to shoot. On a layup or scoop shot near the basket, I look for upward movement of the arms towards the basket.

Both of those actions are very different from the mere grasping of the ball with the hands in ending a dribble. Usually that is done with the palms downward towards the floor. Shooting is done with a palm pointing upward.

These aren't all encompassing and to me are only indicators of a try, but they are also more informative, and I believe more correct per the rules, than simply looking for a gathering of the ball.

I'm not going to award FTs to a player who is driving through the lane with the ball safely tucked away in his arms and belly like a football running back when the opponent fouls him.

Now Snaqs, what are your thoughts?

Primarily, we seem to be on the same page. The only thing I would add is that my whistle will (normally) be slow enough that I've seen enough action to judge what his intent was when he got fouled. On most drives, the gather for a layup isn't that different than a gather for a pass, so a slower whistle can help me make the right call. That said, I would grant shots to a player who had merely gathered on this play at the point of the foul, provided he follows that fairly quickly with an attempt at the movements of a shot.

Now, if their running in behind the left tackle, that's different.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No taps? In thirteen games?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, because they were all girl's basketball games. Girls tend to not tap the ball like boys do. They tend to grab the ball and throw the ball at the basket. I do not recall a single tap that you see in a boy's game for the most obvious reasons. They are not near the basket in height.

Girls basketball? Enough said. You could have officiated twenty-six girls games and still not observe a single tap, other than the jump balls to start the games, and overtime periods.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

After lurking on this one I'm glad to say I finally understand what you're talking about. Maybe it's something used in NCAAM because I haven't heard it on the NCAAW side of things, though I plan to ask about it when I head to camp this weekend.

Really? NCAAW is where I heard it...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Well, I don't always use a smiley, but when I do....

I was partly serious, but only on the specifics. I know how to offer info on plays where it's appropriate. Are you saying that you think a partner should offer info on whether a foul should result in free throws?

Are you talking about strictly double whistle scenarios?

I haven't read past this post yet but it is most definitely appropriate to offer such information. In my case I have offered it more in situations where it was obvious that a player actually passed instead of shooting.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

I highly doubt it, as it seems like I am 0 for 30 when sharing principles that havent trickled down to the HS level & apparently some small college leagues yet.
...

The assumption you make in the bolded segment is what gets you in trouble, not the information itself.

I disagree with Camron and Nevada quite often but it is not b/c I believe I've been exposed to some greater level teachings than they have.

I was in camp this weekend and we discussed when and how to give info (including a play in which a shooting foul was changed to a non-shooting foul) and based on the address listed in our packet one of the clinicians I'm sure is a very, very good friend/mentor of JRut.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The assumption you make in the bolded segment is what gets you in trouble, not the information itself.

What I was thinking, only worded far better.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Really? NCAAW is where I heard it...

As I think about it I've heard it from NCAAM officials when I work with them in H.S. games. I've yet to hear it from the NCAAW officials but I'll ask around over the weekend.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And some things are philosophies. I believe and was taught early on in my career by some that officiating is like three legs. One leg is rules knowledge. Another leg is mechanics and the final leg is philosophy.

The "gather" is a philosophy that a lot of people subscribe to and will continue to subscribe to despite this conversation or your reference or interpretation of the rule. There have also have even been visual interpretations from the NF on this issue in their S&I Rulebook.

Now maybe for you this does not suffice and I am OK with that feeling you have. But the reason that people use philosophies is so that they are consistent in their application of a rule and sometimes with their judgment.

Forgive me but after working about 13 games in two days I cannot think of a single time where someone shot the ball and did not first "gather" the ball and move forward towards the basket. What often officials do is to not award shots because the player did not get off the floor, which you have officials say, "On the floor" as their justification for not ruling that a player is in the act of shooting.

Now this term I used is used by many at higher levels. If is not your understanding again, I am OK with that feeling. But there are no rules that are specific to what a habitual motion entails. But it seems like you cannot make that motion until you start to gather the basketball in an attempt to shoot the basketball.

Everything which you wrote is good and helps provide quality discussion on this topic. It also probably is exactly what is desired from those in your area at the levels which you work. I'm not going to disagree with you, I will simply express that we may be discussing this point with different target audiences in mind.

To be clear, what I wrote in my previous post was strictly for the HS level.

This being the summer a large number of people are attending camps with college and NBA officals. They are paying good money to hear the instruction and thoughts of those people--what you refer to as philosophies.
The point which I desire to make crystal clear is that those philosophies may be fully appropriate at those levels of play, but can also be fully inappropriate for the local HS game on Friday night.

What concerns me is that people may substitute some of these philosophies for proper rule application. This happens frequently when things "trickle down" from the pro and college levels of play to the HS officials. The point which we have been debating about (when to award FTs and when not to) definitely falls into that area. The pro rules support a certain way of handling this, the college assignors have their specific instruction--such as the PAC-12 issued last year (a desire for more FTs to be awarded), and the HS level has its own standard. There is a danger in taking a philosophy heard at a camp presented by someone from one level and applying that in a game at another level. I've been to several of those clinics/camps and spoken to numerous officials at the NBA, D-league, and NCAA D1 levels. They all have excellent advice to offer. However, one needs to do his/her own thinking and own reading to determine if what was just heard will be useful at the level that individual is working.

Another concern of mine is that just because someone is consistent in calling a play a certain way, doesn't make that person correct or accurate according to the given rules source. A great example of this took place a few years ago when it was obvious that several NCAA officials followed their personal philosophies that a player could not have a legitimate defensive position under the basket and called blocking fouls or nothing, when the correct call per the NCAA rules at that time was a charging foul. This eventually forced the rules committee to change the rule and now the NCAA has a version of the pro arc on the floor near the basket. This was definitely a philosophy that trickled down from the pro game to the college game, which was not supported by the NCAA rules. The danger now is that HS officials are doing exactly what these NCAA officials did a few years ago and ignoring the NFHS rules. That makes things confusing for the players and coaches at the HS level, and the NFHS has even issued a statement that using individual philosophies is improper (POE a couple of seasons ago).

[JRutledge]

I will just say this.

Everything I do as an official at the college level is pretty much the exact same thing I do at the HS level.

My main college supervisor is also the head clinician and rules interpreter for the state. The things he talks about that we need to do as it relates to calls are the same things he talks about in supervisor meetings.

I understand that people who primarily do HS basketball often think what we do at the college level is completely foreign. Actually almost all the directives from college like the "absolutes" that John Adams has mentioned in the past 3 or 4 seasons have been POEs in NF Rules.

Obviously there are some rules differences, but in basketball there are so minor or insignificant this is on the issue in this discussion. The wording for continuous motion is practically the same between college and HS. Both codes even use the term habitual movement or motion as an example of when the shooting starts.

Also the three leg philosophy is not a college philosophy. It is an officiating philosophy. I learned these years ago from a football official and heard the same thing said in a basketball meeting by another official. The rules are not always adequate to explain what should be done or promote consistency.

I must also make it clear that I am a State Clinician in Basketball as well. All the clinicians in basketball met in April and were given a video about situations and plays and many of the things we discussed and these kinds of things were discussed and philosophies used.

Now we are always going to have people across the country that will go to camps and here things or think that they hear things that are only that they will hear at a camp where they paid a lot of money to attend. Or they will hear something from an NBA official and think it does not apply to the level they are working. The basic game that we see at the NBA level is the same as college basketball, is the same we see at the HS level when it comes to contact and even philosophy with contact. Actually all the directives that the NF have used have been NBA philosophies and applications. Now watching the USA-Brazil game last night I am not sure that FIBA uses those same philosophies, but I digress.

Peace