LGP under the basket ?
 

Had a situation: L and C double whistle baseline drive to basket; C signals block while L signals PC. C runs to L says B1 under the basket has no LGP thus no PC. L says than how can there be a block? C doesnt yield to L counts basket puts A1 on line for FT. Both experienced Varsity refs but L is Sr and during post game L says in pro, NBA or college maybe ok but not NFHS the area under the basket is still fair play.

This is hard to believe that experienced varsity officials would screw this up. There is no restricted area under NFHS rules. As such, a player can obtain legal guarding position ANYWHERE on the court.

As to your situation on the floor, one official screwed up the rule, then the other two allowed a second screw up by not administering the blarge (double foul).

Where was the third official?

In my mind, this becomes a rules discussion and it would be okay to "ignore" the blarge (as long as the correct ruling was made).

Sounds to me like a screw-up all around (not that it hasn't happened to all of us).

I agree with Bob on this. This is not two officials making opposite judgments. This is applying a rule incorrectly. Once we all agree on the ruleset and the facts, we can tell the coach that there's no blocking foul because there's no RA; so only one foul will be assessed.

And, honestly, I don't find it hard to believe that a veteran could make this mistake IF: 1) the official is also a college official; and 2) the court has the RA markings (maybe it's played in a college venue). In this case, I can see how the NCAA instincts might kick in until he's reminded that it's HS rules.

"I ain't sayin' it's right. . . but I understand." -- Chris Rock, paraphrased.

I am a college official and work with a lot of college officials in high school games and I do not understand. This is pretty basic stuff to know the rule is not the same.

Peace

Some guys just won't give the charge call under the basket regardless of the rule
When my brother was playing an official gave his a minute long lecture on why he wouldn't give that call.

Wow. There's your first clue here.

Same confusion level here. You work the level you're working that night. If they're experienced, they really should remember.

Have to partially disagree here about allowing the screw up to happen. sounds like they brought the official the correct information and he didnt want to do anything about it. if the person is adamant about not following the rules i dont see what you can do about it. i will bring the person the information, have a brief discussion with them and move on. not going to get into an argument or have a fight with another official on the court. at the end of the day, the official in the wrong will have to live with the consequences.

They only argued over whether it should have been a block or a charge. When they came together and realized that they couldn't come to a decision, and one had a block and the other a charge and they both signaled it, the discussion should have next gone into the fact that they had a blarge and what to do next.

I know more than a few officials who will refuse to call a <strike>block</strike><em>charge</em> under the basket in HS and have held that view since long before the NBA or NCAA added their RA's. They like their way better and just will not call it by HS rules.

Is this suppose to be the other way around?

We had this exact discussion at half time of my VB game last weekend. We had a play very similiar...double whistle between L and T, fortunately we had pre-gamed second defender so T never raised her hand to signal. L called it a block. When we got in at half time and were discussing the call and why he went block he said it was because of the depth of the defender. So it was personal preference and I don't see a problem with it. We all agreed that we wish they would put a RA line in for high-school.

Why do you not have a problem with it?

A defender can defend *anywhere* on the court under NFHS rules.

For two experienced Varsity Refs, why are L and C watching the same area. L shouldn't have been "reaching" across the lane to make a call out of his area. If you officiate your PCAs you run less risk of this happening in the first place.

If the contact is a drive from C and contact in the far side of the lane form L, a double whistle is a common occurence -- escpecially if it's a secondary defender -- the L sees the secondary defender, the C keeps following the offensive player.

On a baseline drive, I tend to agree.

OP: Was the L ballside? If so, are you saying that the C reached all the way through and called a foul on a collision?

We pre-game this pretty hard in my pool...if I had been L and had the double whistle I would have released to C for them to make the call. We really have very few double whistles from our Ls in our pool though...just something that is harped on really hard.

Some things are not personal preference.

Double whistles aren't necessarily bad things.

+1

And sometimes both just see the backs of the involved players and not the contact...

Do we have all of the information? I am wondering if they discussed outside official holding (the preliminary) on block/charge plays. I also wonder if anyone mentioned drives from C side being an exception to this philosophy. I think far too many times the L will put air in the whistle on anything drive to the basket when it really shouldn't happen that way.

Like someone else said (putting it my way) the rules are the rules. You can be under the basket and take a charge in high school. It is just that simple. Making a call like this isn't fair to the game and to the other officials who are going to call it properly.

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.

Trust me, you don't. ;)

What do you think about double whistles when the drive starts on C side, either at a 45 degree angle or from the baseline? If I work a college or high school game, we talk about these plays and secondary defenders. A lot of time, the secondary defender surprises the C and the call is made by the seat of the pants. This is a time when I think the L should have the first crack at the play. However - and my previous post didn't get all into this - this is not to say the L is going to have the first crack at every play that goes to the hoop from the C side. For example, if A1 drives from the C side, elevates and it fouled by B2, I still think this isn't a double whistle situation. The L may have a cadence whistle, but it should be on something that is obvious that the C doesn't call. IMO, this applies to plays that start, develop and finish in the C's primary. If a play goes right down the middle of the lane, or close, it is different.

Last night we had a few double whistles in my game. I work with the official I had double whistles with a lot and they must have been good double whistles. I say this because he is my friend, I know him and if we have a double whistle that is clearly in my PCA (a call that is absolutely mine to make) I'm not even looking at him as I move to report.

Without addressing your points in detail, I agree with everything you've said.

Sometimes a play can "blow up" when a defender seems to appear out of nowhere when another official can tell you exactly what that defender did the entire time -- why wouldn't we pass primary responsibility on the call to the official who saw everything the defender did?

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.....

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

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?"

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

Yep...fixed it.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"?

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.

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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...

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.

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.).

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.

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?

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

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.

I would call it, but I can understand an official no calling because they don't feel a real advantage was gained. That is always an option. The issue becomes it has to a be a call or a no call, you can't make up rules, penalties or infractions where one doesn't exist.

+2

We can talk about personal preference, judgement, discretion all we want. They are undoubtedly a big part of officiating.

But there are rules for a reason. The number one complaint from coaches that is legitimate IMO is about consistency. When someone decides to arbitrarily apply rules that don't exist at that level, that is a problem. Even if they believe they are individually consistent in calling it.

Personally, I'm not a fan of a player standing under the basket to draw a charge and likely no-call that situation more than many at the HS level. But I will not call a block on a player who has LGP and has done nothing illegal under NFHS rules simply because I want to apply NCAA or NBA rules to a NFHS game. It's wrong, plain and simple.