To Correct or Not

[Adam]

As one who is in the camp where I rarely correct a partner during the game, if a partner comes into my primary to make a call like this, we'll have a short "3 points" chat right away. It's one thing to let a partner officiate his primary area, it's quite another to let him officiate mine without input.

Oh, and tref was clearly using sarcasm in that last thread.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by tref

What? The observer didn't want the C to wait for the T to ask

I think the observer would've run onto the court himself if the C didn't go on his own

[7IronRef]

Gotta say that I really don't like the C making this call even though he had a pretty good look.

It looks like he got the play right. Once the left foot comes off the floor, the right foot is clearly in the front court. It appears that both the left foot and the ball are no longer in contact with the court which means that the player has established front court status.

As soon as the ball touches the division line a violation has occurred.

Please cite "3 points rule" that is not a shot. I could not find it.

ART. 1
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

ART. 2
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if *neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

ART. 3
A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

[Welpe]

4-4-6, also known as the "three points" rule.

"During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt."

Per this rule, there is no violation on this play.

[APG]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Gotta say that I really don't like the C making this call even though he had a pretty good look.

It looks like he got the play right. Once the left foot comes off the floor, the right foot is clearly in the front court. It appears that both the left foot and the ball are no longer in contact with the court which means that the player has established front court status.

As soon as the ball touches the division line a violation has occurred.

Please cite "3 points rule" that is not a shot. I could not find it.

ART. 1
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

ART. 2
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if *neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

ART. 3
A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

Nah, the C blew the call.

You won't find the term "3 points rule" formally state as such in the book because it's the informal/quick way of saying that when a dribbler is dribbling the ball from the backcourt to the frontcourt, the ball is not considered to be in the frontcourt until both feet (point 1 and point 2) and the ball (point 3) touch entirely in the frontcourt.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Nah, the C blew the call.

You won't find the term "3 points rule" formally state as such in the book because it's the informal/quick way of saying that when a dribbler is dribbling the ball from the backcourt to the frontcourt, the ball is not considered to be in the frontcourt until both feet (point 1 and point 2) and the ball (point 3) touch entirely in the frontcourt.

Hmm I wonder which rule that would be?

[Nevadaref]

If you were Lead and the C incorrectly called an out of bounds violation on the endline, what would you do?
I see this as the same as the OP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you were Lead and the C incorrectly called an out of bounds violation on the endline, what would you do?
I see this as the same as the OP.

Had a T last season call an incorrect travel, right in front of me (2 whistle), when the shooter caught his airball. We fixed it together.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Gotta say that I really don't like the C making this call even though he had a pretty good look.

It looks like he got the play right. Once the left foot comes off the floor, the right foot is clearly in the front court. It appears that both the left foot and the ball are no longer in contact with the court which means that the player has established front court status.

As soon as the ball touches the division line a violation has occurred.

Please cite "3 points rule" that is not a shot. I could not find it.

ART. 1
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

ART. 2
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if *neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

ART. 3
A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

Seriously?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Had a T last season call an incorrect travel, right in front of me (2 whistle), when the shooter caught his airball. We fixed it together.

Last season, two man, made 3 pointer from top of the key. B1 flies at the shooter, very slight contact with ball long gone. A1 flops. All this right in front of me, nobody else in the picture. Lead whistles the foul from the end line.

[JRutledge]

Some things are not going to be fixed. We cannot fix every bad ruling by a partner. In this case I might have talked to the officials if I was the T in this specific play as he is clearly looking down the line. Otherwise, we would just have to live with this call. You cannot change everything. That would just be something that we would talk about at halftime or after the game. Then the assignor would have to decide if people that cannot make basic calls should be there by messing up rules.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then the assignor would have to decide if people that cannot make basic calls should be there by messing up rules.

Either that and/or the assignor would wonder why his R is acting like a U2 by not stepping up to do whats right when the opportunity presents itself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Either that and/or the assignor would wonder why his R is acting like a U2 by not stepping up to do whats right when the opportunity presents itself.

Hey, just because your assigners expect the Us to need help doesn't mean mine does.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

Either that and/or the assignor would wonder why his R is acting like a U2 by not stepping up to do whats right when the opportunity presents itself.

The assignors I work for would be wanting to hire people that would not make these kinds of basic mistakes. This is not a typical "change" situation.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The assignors I work for would be wanting to hire people that would not make these kinds of basic mistakes. This is not a typical "change" situation.

Peace

True