LGP under the basket ?

[egj13]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

Some things are not personal preference.

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.

[Zoochy]

I worked a 2-man game last night. Had the same play. I am lead and Trail is just inside the mid-court line. As the Lead, I am moving across the lane area to watch the baseline drive better. The only thing different in this play is the defender desides to turn away (like she is boxing out). Double whistle. Since we pregame double whistle. Play is coming to me, thus I take the call. I call charge.
After the game he disagrees with me stating that the player does not have legal guarding position because her back is now towards the player with the ball. I say defender did nothing wrong and player with the ball runs over the defender. Then he barks something about the restricted area. We agree to disagree.
Oh well.....

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Then he barks something about the restricted area.

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

[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

[Rich]

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.

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?"

[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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by egj13

....

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.

So, do you tell the coach this is why you didn't make the player control call or do you lie?

Based on an earlier post you seem reluctant to be forthcoming with the coach. If I don't call a hand-checking foul I can always truthfully say I didn't feel the contact affected the ball-handler. Can you be as truthful in your response about the block?

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by egj13

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.

Maybe it's just me, but this explanation means nothing at all (I also think you meant to say you don't called charges deep in the paint). I want to give coach a substantive reason why I called a block/charge play a certain way....

"Coach, he moved into the path after the shooter was airborne."

"Coach, he was moving forward at the time of contact."

"Coach, no time or distance is afforded to a dribbler."

etc.

Telling a coach you have a block because you saw it as a block...well duh! He already knows you saw it as a block because that's what you called! So, how do you answer a coach that asked reasonable, what his/her defender did wrong?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by APG

Maybe it's just me, but this explanation means nothing at all...I want to give coach a substantive reason why I called a block/charge play a certain way....

Same here. If I'm that coach who hears "I didn't see it as a block/charge," the next question is going to be, "You didn't see it as a block/charge? What the heck do you mean you didn't see it as a block/charge?" At which point you'll probably have to explain your philosophy...and then the argument starts.