LGP under the basket ?

[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.

[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.

[APG]

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

I'll let you continue to let you explain your "philosophy" but incidental does not mean accidental when talking from a basketball rule perspective. It's contact that does not rise to the level of a foul because it does hinder a player from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements.

[Camron Rust]

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
....

Keep on digging...you can referee by the seat of your pants only so long.

[Camron Rust]

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
....

Keep on digging...you're only showing more of what you don't understand about basketball. You may have enough charisma to pull it off on most of the coaches in your area but in doing so you screw any official that follows you and tries to do it right.

[Adam]

I've never seen a coach complain when a 30 year vet tells all the players to go behind the division line for technical foul free throws, either. Doesn't make it right.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Adam

I've never seen a coach complain when a 30 year vet tells all the players to go behind the division line for technical foul free throws, either. Doesn't make it right.

You would not (Or maybe you would) believe how many guys I work with that perpetuate this myth, even after it was on the Part 2 test this year. This isn't the first time I've heard this one, but I had a guy tell me this year that the players can't go near their benches to talk to their coach during TF free throws. So the team whose bench is opposite the free throws can't go near their bench because the other team can't cross over the division line to go to their bench.

You can tell that most guys enforce this myth though. We had techs on head coaches in two different games last week and every player went and stood behind the division line on their own.

[egj13]

In all of your replies you keep missing oout on something...in officiating there is personal belief applied to many of the rules and how we administer them.

tomegun, you say that I am causing us to look inconsistent? I ask again, if a player is standing near the low block with his foot on the lane line for more than 3 seconds do you whistle him for it? What do you tell a coach when he says the last crew in here called it. Same goes for rough post play and what you deem incidental in comparison to what i deem incidental.

In the end I will agree to disagree with you guys...

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by egj13

In all of your replies you keep missing oout on something...in officiating there is personal belief applied to many of the rules and how we administer them.

True, but there's a huge difference in terms of calling/not calling violations and giving a foul to a player who, by rule, doesn't deserve it. A player can be called for an endless number of violations in a game but (s)he only gets five personal fouls. If they get one because we kick a call, hey, it happens sometimes because we're not perfect. If they get one because we're knowingly misapplying a rule, that's neither right nor fair.

[tomegun]

egj13, look at the opposite of this subject. If a college official calls a charge on a secondary defender that is in the RA, how do you think the coach is going to react? How do you think the supervisor is going to react? What if the official just thinks the player should be able to take a charge in the RA? That is not going to go over too well. I think the same is true of the opposite high school rule. The main difference is what many people know/believe to be true about the rules in high school basketball.

I also don't think it is coincidental about consistency across the board between high school officials, college officials and NBA officials. When I think about it, this is the same for almost any product/service I would pay for. The more I am expected to pay, the more I expect in return (quality, consistency, reliability, etc.).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by egj13

In all of your replies you keep missing oout on something...in officiating there is personal belief applied to many of the rules and how we administer them.

tomegun, you say that I am causing us to look inconsistent? I ask again, if a player is standing near the low block with his foot on the lane line for more than 3 seconds do you whistle him for it? What do you tell a coach when he says the last crew in here called it. Same goes for rough post play and what you deem incidental in comparison to what i deem incidental.

In the end I will agree to disagree with you guys...

You're missing the whole point. You can have all kinds of grey areas where you call or don't call an infraction, but nowhere does that go so far as to penalize the wrong team.

What you're doing is akin to a defensive player entering the lane early on a FT then canceling the offensive player's shot.

You can officiate around the grey regions all day and that is a matter of preference but don't try to turn black into white. Don't call the charge if you don't want to but you can't justify a block no matter how you twist it. You're cheating the defender by giving him a foul when he did nothing to deserve it.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by egj13

In all of your replies you keep missing oout on something...in officiating there is personal belief applied to many of the rules and how we administer them.

tomegun, you say that I am causing us to look inconsistent? I ask again, if a player is standing near the low block with his foot on the lane line for more than 3 seconds do you whistle him for it? What do you tell a coach when he says the last crew in here called it. Same goes for rough post play and what you deem incidental in comparison to what i deem incidental.

In the end I will agree to disagree with you guys...

I'm ok with the idea of a no call because you don't feel the spirit, intent, or letter of a rule has been violated. You don't see the pushing and shoving effecting the post player no call it. You see a hand check but it doesn't impact the ball carrier and you want to no call it thats fine too. Kid has foot in the key but never recieves the ball or looks to recieve it, so you don't call 3 in the key that is fine with me. Kid is really deep and not really trying to defend, no call on the defense getting run over.

I'm also willing to support an official who tightly applies the rule. Kid was in the key for 3 seconds official called three seconds. Kid put his hands on the ball handler and u think its too much so you call it. Post players have to respect time, space and cylinder so when the start pushing each other off spots the ref calls fouls. Player has legal guarding position and gets run over, so we call a charge.

Here's what I (and most officials I know) would never be ok with. Kid was not in the key, but we call 3 seconds. Kid does not put his hands on the offensive player, but we call a handcheck. Post player stands holding his own space but we call him for pushing off. Player establishes LGP and does nothing illegal, is not responsible for the contact and gets called for a block or other foul.

I'm ok with whatever your personal feelings are about deep players and drawing charges so long as your choices are call the rule as written or no call the situation. I'm not ok with the idea of making up non existent calls to get the game played the way we want it to be played.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm ok with the idea of a no call because you don't feel the spirit, intent, or letter of a rule has been violated. You don't see the pushing and shoving effecting the post player no call it. You see a hand check but it doesn't impact the ball carrier and you want to no call it thats fine too. Kid has foot in the key but never recieves the ball or looks to recieve it, so you don't call 3 in the key that is fine with me. Kid is really deep and not really trying to defend, no call on the defense getting run over.

I'm also willing to support an official who tightly applies the rule. Kid was in the key for 3 seconds official called three seconds. Kid put his hands on the ball handler and u think its too much so you call it. Post players have to respect time, space and cylinder so when the start pushing each other off spots the ref calls fouls. Player has legal guarding position and gets run over, so we call a charge.

Here's what I (and most officials I know) would never be ok with. Kid was not in the key, but we call 3 seconds. Kid does not put his hands on the offensive player, but we call a handcheck. Post player stands holding his own space but we call him for pushing off. Player establishes LGP and does nothing illegal, is not responsible for the contact and gets called for a block or other foul.

I'm ok with whatever your personal feelings are about deep players and drawing charges so long as your choices are call the rule as written or no call the situation. I'm not ok with the idea of making up non existent calls to get the game played the way we want it to be played.

+1

Well said.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm ok with the idea of a no call because you don't feel the spirit, intent, or letter of a rule has been violated. You don't see the pushing and shoving effecting the post player no call it. You see a hand check but it doesn't impact the ball carrier and you want to no call it thats fine too. Kid has foot in the key but never recieves the ball or looks to recieve it, so you don't call 3 in the key that is fine with me. Kid is really deep and not really trying to defend, no call on the defense getting run over.

I don't think all four of these things go together that well. In the first three, the official chose the no call because, basically, nothing happened.

In the last example, something happened. In the last play, the defender was run over. He did a good thing, even if by accident. He took away the path to the basket and prevented a score. It doesn't matter if he was "not trying to defend." It doesn't matter how deep he was in the key. He was run over. He was displaced. Something happened.

This is just wrong.