LGP under the basket ?

[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.

[egj13]

I appreciate the constructive criticism fellas..seriously. But after 19 years of officiating I have given my explanation of being too "deep" plenty of times and have yet to have an argument over it. Maybe because coaches know I am consistent with it or whatever reason...but it has worked for me and I sleep fine at night calling it this way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by egj13

I appreciate the constructive criticism fellas..seriously. But after 19 years of officiating I have given my explanation of being too "deep" plenty of times and have yet to have an argument over it. Maybe because coaches know I am consistent with it or whatever reason...but it has worked for me and I sleep fine at night calling it this way.

Or because they mistakenly think that's the rule.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by egj13

I appreciate the constructive criticism fellas..seriously. But after 19 years of officiating I have given my explanation of being too "deep" plenty of times and have yet to have an argument over it. Maybe because coaches know I am consistent with it or whatever reason...but it has worked for me and I sleep fine at night calling it this way.

Doing it that way for 19 yrs. only means you've been doing it wrong for a long time. Part of improving as an official is doing the right thing when we receive clarity or new information about rules application. We've all been wrong about rules before. However, most change to get into alignment with the rule, not the other way around. As you said, you sleep fine at night. So carry on.

[APG]

Originally Posted by egj13

I appreciate the constructive criticism fellas..seriously. But after 19 years of officiating I have given my explanation of being too "deep" plenty of times and have yet to have an argument over it. Maybe because coaches know I am consistent with it or whatever reason...but it has worked for me and I sleep fine at night calling it this way.

I'd say it's more cause a lot of coaches believe the rules myth that one can't take a charge underneath the basket rather than anything you do personally. What happens if you have a partner that doesn't subscribe to your philosophy, calls a charge underneath the basket, and then explains to a coach that a player can obtain a legal position underneath the basket...then you go and tell him something exactly opposite of that?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In #2 I could always say that it is incidental contact and did not affect the "normal movement" of the player.

You are exactly right, but what would an official be able to say for #1? "I don't think someone can take a charge that far under the hoop even though I have no rule to support it"?

Originally Posted by egj13

I appreciate the constructive criticism fellas..seriously. But after 19 years of officiating I have given my explanation of being too "deep" plenty of times and have yet to have an argument over it. Maybe because coaches know I am consistent with it or whatever reason...but it has worked for me and I sleep fine at night calling it this way.

That is great for you, but a little bit selfish and short-sighted. The night after you leave any given school, what if someone officiates a game and makes calls according to the rules? Every seemingly harmless instance of something like this contributes to the perception - and reality - that we are not consistent.