LGP under the basket ?

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Did you ask why he brought up something that has nothing to do with NFHS rules or had you tuned him out by then?

I tuned him out waaaaaaaaaaaaay before the game ended.
I have to work with him again next month. Geez

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

Is this suppose to be the other way around?

Yep...fixed it.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by egj13

Most of our officiating is personal prefference...some of us let people play harder in the paint, some let more hand checking than others, some administer 3 seconds differently...

Personal preference on not granting blocks deep under the basket in no different than any of those and as long as you are consistent with your call there is no harm.

When the governing body says it's legal and someone rules it illegal because of personal preference, there is harm. The harm is the defender who did nothing wrong was assesed a foul because of personal preference. The harm is that a team lost a possession because of personal preference. If free-throws were awarded and made, a team got points they didn't deserve because of personal preference. So yes, there potentially can be harm.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by egj13

Most of our officiating is personal prefference...some of us let people play harder in the paint, some let more hand checking than others, some administer 3 seconds differently...

Personal preference on not granting blocks deep under the basket in no different than any of those and as long as you are consistent with your call there is no harm.

Sure, many things are personal preference. BUT, calling a block on a player who earned a charge isn't. That is just wrong. I can see some maybe choosing to call nothing but to call it on the wrong player in direct opposition to the rules is not OK.

Furthermore, it is even dishonest when you know, by NFHS rules, that is should be a charge and you still call a block because of who knows what reason. If you want to call NCAA rules, do so...but do it in an NCAA game. If you don't work NCAA games, you don't get to call it that way.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by camron rust

sure, many things are personal preference. But, calling a block on a player who earned a charge isn't. That is just wrong. I can see some maybe choosing to call nothing but to call it on the wrong player in direct opposition to the rules is not ok.

Furthermore, it is even dishonest when you know, by nfhs rules, that is should be a charge and you still call a block because of who knows what reason. If you want to call ncaa rules, do so...but do it in an ncaa game. If you don't work ncaa games, you don't get to call it that way.

amen!

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Rich

Yes, it is. How can it be OK when one official calls the exact same play one way (due to "personal preference") and another calls it completely differently?

Besides -- it's completely unsupported by rule -- how does he explain this to a coach who asks the question, "Why was that a block?"

Every time a defender places a hand on a ball handler it is a hand check...how do answer the coach when he asks you why you didn't call the check? You might let a defender body a kid in the low post and I might call it a push...how do you answer the coach when he asks why it wasn't a push? We all have parts of the game that we call to our own personal preference. I don't call blocks deep in the paint, when a coach asks me why it wasn't a block I tell him I didn't see it as a block...pretty easy stuff here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by egj13

Every time a defender places a hand on a ball handler it is a hand check...how do answer the coach when he asks you why you didn't call the check? You might let a defender body a kid in the low post and I might call it a push...how do you answer the coach when he asks why it wasn't a push? We all have parts of the game that we call to our own personal preference. I don't call blocks deep in the paint, when a coach asks me why it wasn't a block I tell him I didn't see it as a block...pretty easy stuff here.

Because you're basing it on philosophy rather than rule. Deciding on a handcheck or push is not the same thing as adding your personal philosophy to the rule.

And no, placing a hand on a dribbler is not an automatic hand check according to the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by egj13

Every time a defender places a hand on a ball handler it is a hand check...how do answer the coach when he asks you why you didn't call the check? You might let a defender body a kid in the low post and I might call it a push...how do you answer the coach when he asks why it wasn't a push? We all have parts of the game that we call to our own personal preference. I don't call blocks deep in the paint, when a coach asks me why it wasn't a block I tell him I didn't see it as a block...pretty easy stuff here.

We're talking about people calling blocks instead of charges simply because it was too far under the basket.

What do you tell the coach when he asks why it was a block instead of a charge?

1. He was too far under the basket? If so, you just told him you're making up your own rules and you incorrectly penalized the defender.

2. Something else? Given the reason you've already expressed as to why you don't call those charges, you just lied. There goes your integrity.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Adam

Because you're basing it on philosophy rather than rule. Deciding on a handcheck or push is not the same thing as adding your personal philosophy to the rule.

And no, placing a hand on a dribbler is not an automatic hand check according to the rule.

Deciding handchecks is philosophy too...you personally have a philosophy on how much hand checking you are going to allow.

10-6-2...A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

I don't see much gray area there but you don't call a foul every time contact is made (I hope)...due to your personal philosophy of how much hand checking you are going to allow.

What is your philosphy on three seconds? If a player is standing on the line do you call him for it?

9-7-2...The three-second restriction applies to a player who has only one
foot touching the lane boundary. The line is part of the lane. All lines designating the free-throw lane, but not lane-space marks and neutral-zone marks, are part of the lane.

Not much gray area there either but I bet you have a personal philosophy on this.

My personal philosophy is that a player under the basket has an unfair advantage when trying to draw a charge and it is dangerous...hence the reason the NCAA put in the RA. But don't play all high and mighty like I am the only official on here that has personal philosophies on how the game should be called.

[Adam]

You can't quote the hand check rule without referencing the incidental contact rule. That's not personal preference no matter how much you want it to be.

And it's only dangerous when it's not called by the rule. The NCAA changed it because the officials were calling it that way already.

And no, I don't follow a personal philosophy about three seconds. I follow the predominant philosophy of my association.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Adam

You can't quote the hand check rule without referencing the incidental contact rule. That's not personal preference no matter how much you want it to be.

And it's only dangerous when it's not called by the rule. The NCAA changed it because the officials were calling it that way already.

And no, I don't follow a personal philosophy about three seconds. I follow the predominant philosophy of my association.

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental

But if you go to page 68..."guidelines for teaching and officiating" #5 says Regardless of where it takes place on the court, when a player continuously places a hand on the ball handler/dribbler, it is a foul.

Basically you need to face the fact that like my philosophy on blocks under the basket, you yourself (as well as all of us on here) have a philosophy on hand checking. As far as 3 seconds, whether it is you philosophy or your association's philosophy, the rule is being applied in accordance with a philospohy and not the rule book.

[tomegun]

If someone were to use the philosophy mindset:

1. On a block/charge play under the basket, what would the response be if the coach asked, "Was my player set to take the charge?" if the player was set and the official just doesn't believe in calling a charge under the basket?
2. What would the response be if B1 clearly has a hand on A1, BUT A1's RBSQ isn't affected and the coach asked, "Did the defender's hand meet the definition of hand checking?"

I think one answer could be explained as contact that didn't impact the play and is a pure judgement call while the other is an official's opinion of what he/she will or will not call. If the official tells a coach that the player was too far under the basket, and the coach knows the requirement to not be under the basket doesn't exist, hold on - the ride is about to get bumpy.

KISS and assume that the coach always knows the rule. Of course the coach often has no clue about the rule, but it keeps officials, assignors, etc. out of harm's way.

[scrounge]

eg, I think you're confusing "using a guideline to apply judgment and discern how to apply a rule" with "make up your own arbitrary rule and ignore one when you feel like it". Your hand check or 3 sec example is not applicable, since those are using philosophy/local practice in how to apply a judgment uniformly. To be the same as your made-up rule on blocking, the analogy would be to have one hand-check philosophy in the backcourt but another for the front court or something. You're just creating a different method of judgment out of whole cloth, based purely on location. It has no basis in the rules for high school; indeed, it's explicitly against the rules, since NFHS has clearly not adopted the RA.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by egj13

Incidental contact doesn't apply to hand checking...you can't incidentally extend your hand out to contact an opponent...afterall, the synonym for incidental is accidental...I don't think any of us would clarify hand checking as accidental

But if you go to page 68..."guidelines for teaching and officiating" #5 says Regardless of where it takes place on the court, when a player continuously places a hand on the ball handler/dribbler, it is a foul.

Basically you need to face the fact that like my philosophy on blocks under the basket, you yourself (as well as all of us on here) have a philosophy on hand checking. As far as 3 seconds, whether it is you philosophy or your association's philosophy, the rule is being applied in accordance with a philospohy and not the rule book.

They might be synonyms, but they do have different meanings. You can have accidental contact that's a foul, and intentional contact that isn't.

And you've now added the word "continuous" to the rule -- that alone makes it different. A "hot stove touch" meets the literal rule requirements for a foul, but isn't to be interpreted that way.

A better analogy would be "yes, the contact affected the dribbler's rhythm, speed, balance or quickness, but I didn't call it a foul because s/he was too far from the basket."

The rule / case is pretty clear here, at least to me. If you would have called it a charge if the action had taken place 6' farther out on the court, then you should have the same call when the action is under the basket.

Now, if you want to suggest that the rule be changed, that's a different discussion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

If someone were to use the philosophy mindset:

1. On a block/charge play under the basket, what would the response be if the coach asked, "Was my player set to take the charge?" if the player was set and the official just doesn't believe in calling a charge under the basket?
2. What would the response be if B1 clearly has a hand on A1, BUT A1's RBSQ isn't affected and the coach asked, "Did the defender's hand meet the definition of hand checking?"

I think one answer could be explained as contact that didn't impact the play and is a pure judgement call while the other is an official's opinion of what he/she will or will not call. If the official tells a coach that the player was too far under the basket, and the coach knows the requirement to not be under the basket doesn't exist, hold on - the ride is about to get bumpy.

KISS and assume that the coach always knows the rule. Of course the coach often has no clue about the rule, but it keeps officials, assignors, etc. out of harm's way.

In #2 I could always say that it is incidental contact and did not affect the "normal movement" of the player. That is also in the rulebook and whether we like it or not, has an actual definition while handchecking mostly is an interpretation of current rules.

That being said I agree totally with the last statement. It is better to sit on the rules when possible. And it is best to use rulebook language.

Peace