Timekeeper sneaking in subs

[rockyroad]

As I said, I don't do this...but I don't think doing it is a sign of anyone's integrity when it is an accepted practice in their area.

Question for Eastshire: Team B is down by over 40 with less than a minute to play. Team A scores, And team B inbounds to their backup point guard who proceeds to travel before getting his dribble started 80 feet from the basket with no defender anywhere near him...are you going to call that travel?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

As I said, I don't do this...but I don't think doing it is a sign of anyone's integrity when it is an accepted practice in their area.

Question for Eastshire: Team B is down by over 40 with less than a minute to play. Team A scores, And team B inbounds to their backup point guard who proceeds to travel before getting his dribble started 80 feet from the basket with no defender anywhere near him...are you going to call that travel?

Yes. I'm going to hate it and wish it hadn't happened but if I call every travel I'm sure of regardless of the score.

The reality, however, is I'm probably not watching the guard close enough to catch it in this situation. So it probably slides not because I'm avoiding the rule but because I'm focusing on different priorities and don't see it well enough to call it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

As I said, I don't do this...but I don't think doing it is a sign of anyone's integrity when it is an accepted practice in their area.

Question for Eastshire: Team B is down by over 40 with less than a minute to play. Team A scores, And team B inbounds to their backup point guard who proceeds to travel before getting his dribble started 80 feet from the basket with no defender anywhere near him...are you going to call that travel?

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Yes. I'm going to hate it and wish it hadn't happened but if I call every travel I'm sure of regardless of the score.

The reality, however, is I'm probably not watching the guard close enough to catch it in this situation. So it probably slides not because I'm avoiding the rule but because I'm focusing on different priorities and don't see it well enough to call it.

Right there is an example of what I just cited, a bogus excuse as to why you aren't enforcing a rule. That is an integrity issue. Like someone is supposed to believe you are not watching the ball-handler when there is nothing else within 40' to look at.

An official with integrity will just admit that they passed on the call.

And an official who does make that travel call will eventually find a roadblock in their career progression.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Right there is an example of what I just cited, a bogus excuse as to why you aren't enforcing a rule. That is an integrity issue. Like someone is supposed to believe you are not watching the ball-handler when there is nothing else within 40' to look at.

An official with integrity will just admit that they passed on the call.

And an official who does make that travel call will eventually find a roadblock in their career progression.

I don't know about you, but I've been taught not to stare at the dribbler in this situation but to look up the court and find the first defender. So no, I'm not watching his feet and no I'm probably not going to see the travel well enough to call it. If you choose not to believe that, that's fine, but it is the truth.

If calling the game according to the rules means I don't "progress," that's just fine by me. I'm not in this gig for the glory of the games I get. I'm in it because I like sports and I enjoy the work.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

...
Question for Eastshire: Team B is down by over 40 with less than a minute to play. Team A scores, And team B inbounds to their backup point guard who proceeds to travel before getting his dribble started 80 feet from the basket with no defender anywhere near him...are you going to call that travel?

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't know about you, but I've been taught not to stare at the dribbler in this situation but to look up the court and find the first defender. So no, I'm not watching his feet and no I'm probably not going to see the travel well enough to call it. If you choose not to believe that, that's fine, but it is the truth.

What defender? There is no defender in sight. Again, an official who makes up excuses.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If calling the game according to the rules means I don't "progress," that's just fine by me. I'm not in this gig for the glory of the games I get. I'm in it because I like sports and I enjoy the work.

Glory of the games? Is that your euphenism for progressing and getting higher paying games?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What defender? There is no defender in sight. Again, an official who makes up excuses.



Glory of the games? Is that your euphenism for progressing and getting higher paying games?

Which is why I was trained to look for him.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Which is why I was trained to look for him.

Before the ball was thrown-in you would have known there was no defender in sight in the situation rockyroad proposed. Again, you are searching for a bunch of lame excuses as to why you wouldn't have called a travel but you feel like you can judge every other official as having no integrity for letting the subs in at an unauthorized time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't know about you, but I've been taught not to stare at the dribbler in this situation but to look up the court and find the first defender. So no, I'm not watching his feet and no I'm probably not going to see the travel well enough to call it. If you choose not to believe that, that's fine, but it is the truth.
.

When the defender is 40' away, there isn't much you need to be looking at other than the ball handler. It doesn't take any time to detect that they are not near the play. You have only 1 responsibility at that point...the ball and the ball handler. To say you're not going to see it because your focus is elsewhere is disingenuous at best. You're essentially closing your eyes to a potential violation....which is no better than not calling one that you do see because the game is so far out of reach that calling it would benefit no one.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If calling the game according to the rules means I don't "progress," that's just fine by me. I'm not in this gig for the glory of the games I get. I'm in it because I like sports and I enjoy the work.

There are the "rules" and there are the "right" calls. Sometimes, the correct call is not the right call. There is far more to the game than the book.

You may see me debate many points on this forum in a very technical rulebook stance but that doesn't mean I call them by the letter on the floor. Rules need to be understood inside and out, not just from a technical perspective, but from an intent and purpose perspective and, furthermore, from the perspective of how to intelligently apply them. The ability to apply them intelligently requires the full technical understanding but it doesn't mean you always call everything you see. Black and white application is easy, anyone can do it, but accepting that nearly every rule in the book has some wiggle room in the right circumstances will serve both you and the game much better.

Understanding of that has been something that I had to acquire. Once I did, I was able to officiate a much better game...not simply in blowouts but in close games too.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are the "rules" and there are the "right" calls. Sometimes, the correct call is not the right call. There is far more to the game than the book.

You may see me debate many points on this forum in a very technical rulebook stance but that doesn't mean I call them by the letter on the floor. Rules need to be understood inside and out, not just from a technical perspective, but from an intent and purpose perspective and, furthermore, from the perspective of how to intelligently apply them. The ability to apply them intelligently requires the full technical understanding but it doesn't mean you always call everything you see. Black and white application is easy, anyone can do it, but accepting that nearly every rule in the book has some wiggle room in the right circumstances will serve both you and the game much better.

Understanding of that has been something that I had to acquire. Once I did, I was able to officiate a much better game...not simply in blowouts but in close games too.

I agree. I disagree that stopping the game to allow substitutions fits inside the concept of intelligently applying the rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I agree. I disagree that stopping the game to allow substitutions fits inside the concept of intelligently applying the rules.

I would agree with that too...I'm not blowing the whistle for that just to get the subs in. That is carrying it too far IMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I agree. I disagree that stopping the game to allow substitutions fits inside the concept of intelligently applying the rules.

I agree. But it doesn't mean the officials who do it are showing a lack of integrity.