The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Backcourt Violation? with Video (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/94346-backcourt-violation-video.html)

bainsey Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 884570)
One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.
The only time we're allowed to use that signal is for 60-second time outs.

The philosophy here is, if there's no need for a count, there's no need for a spead-arms signal. Just don't signal. See also violation. If there's no violation, there's no need to signal anything.

As for "play on" in soccer, that signal actually acknowledges there was a foul, but to whistle it would kill any advantage the offense already has. "Play on" doesn't mean "there was no foul."

bob jenkins Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 884570)
Agree on the no-call. Had one not quite as goofy in a post-season tourney game last week that brought half the stands out of their seats to protest, but got the no-call right.
One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.
I've pointed to the floor where a player coming from the BC has landed just before catching a pass from the FC. This is to indicate that the landing happened first.

I support the additional information.

HokiePaul Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 884570)
...One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.
I think that signal was completely instintual -- probably in reaction to/in anticipation of noise from the bench wanting a violation called. It clearly conveyed the message that the ref had it the whole way and (correctly) had no call.

As far as making this signal standard, I don't think you can do that. Technically speaking, the official has to be able to continue the 10 second count should the player catching the ball remain in the backcourt.

MD Longhorn Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:02am
It's not standard, but it's similar to the "safe" signal in baseball or softball in a weird case where your signal is merely conveying "I saw that, and it's nothing".

referee99 Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:42am
Exactly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 884570)
One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.
I could see the other point of view (don't use the mechanic), but it seemed the best way to communicate to all at the time.

Camron Rust Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:47am
I agree...no call. The passer was still in the backcourt when the ball was passed.

OKREF Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:54am
The "not closely guarded signal" is an official signal, it was added to the official signals this year. Number 12 on the signal chart of the rule book.

fullor30 Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 884584)
I've pointed to the floor where a player coming from the BC has landed just before catching a pass from the FC. This is to indicate that the landing happened first.

I support the additional information.

Regarding floor point .... Yup

BillyMac Wed Mar 13, 2013 01:09pm
No Blind Jokes, Please ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 884596)
The "not closely guarded signal" is an official signal, it was added to the official signals this year. Number 12 on the signal chart of the rule book.
The "not closely guarded" signal was removed from the IAABO mechanics manual at the beginning of the 2012-13 season. I guess they figure that if you're not counting, you don't have a closely guarded count. Stupid IAABO mechanics. What was wrong with the NFHS mechanics that we were using for many, many years?

csb1971 Fri Mar 15, 2013 01:00pm
Had a play identical to this earlier in the season. It was close, but the kid's foot was still in the backcourt. The coach and crowed howled, but there was nothing to call!

OKREF Fri Mar 15, 2013 01:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 884611)
The "not closely guarded" signal was removed from the IAABO mechanics manual at the beginning of the 2012-13 season. I guess they figure that if you're not counting, you don't have a closely guarded count. Stupid IAABO mechanics. What was wrong with the NFHS mechanics that we were using for many, many years?
I don't use it all the time. However in some situations I will. For example if it is a close tight game and there is a lot of ball pressure I will use it to make sure that all coaches know they aren't closely guarded.

letemplay Fri Mar 15, 2013 01:58pm
momentary brain freeze
 
Altering the video sitch a hair, what if the player HAD BOTH feet in the frontcourt but had yet to get the ball across and then shovel passed it off his dribble to his teammate still in backcourt? I realize if player picks up his dribble he has front court status and this play would be a violation, but would there need to be clear end of dribble and player control to give ball front court status?

bob jenkins Fri Mar 15, 2013 02:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by letemplay (Post 884936)
Altering the video sitch a hair, what if the player HAD BOTH feet in the frontcourt but had yet to get the ball across and then shovel passed it off his dribble to his teammate still in backcourt? I realize if player picks up his dribble he has front court status and this play would be a violation, but would there need to be clear end of dribble and player control to give ball front court status?
If it was still a dribble, then you'd need all three points. Since he clearly ened his dribble and then passed the ball, your (changed) description would result in a violation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:12am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1