LGP under the basket ?

[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.

[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.

[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.).